Talk:Questionable Content

Plot summary

I know a few other comic articles have plot summations, and I thought that while QC isn't the shortest strip ever, maybe some of us could give a short summation of the major plot advances thus far. The article for Watchmen has a complete summation of the plot, and that was a featured article, so I'm using that to make the case that a synopsis would not constitute OR. What do y'all think? Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about giving it a try myself, but I wasn't quite sure how the rest of y'all would feel. I say go right ahead. Rmj12345 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What I want to know is how many days we've seen "QC Time". I remember sometime after about a 300-500 comic arc Jeph saying "Another day comes to an end in QC time" and I was amazed! I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't even been a month, except for the weather changes... Dr. McJagger (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Events shown have been on at least 63 different days. Recently there was a gap, long enough for Penelope to get more than one letter from Wil, between adjacent strips. Jacques has been quoted as saying (a while back) that in his mind something less than a year had gone by. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also during that gap, Dora's blond roots grew out substantially. —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Characters or Secondary : Steve, Raven and Sven

Alright, so, here's my issue with Steve & Raven. They've gone from being prominent supporting characters to being characters who appear once every blue moon. I want to move them to secondary characters because even when they were around, they never really did anything significant. And honestly, at this point, Sven is probably a bigger supporting character than both of them combined. What do you all think? Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase is "at this point" - QC is quite slow-moving so it often focus on minor character's story arc for a month or two. IMO, the only Primary characters are Marten, Faye and Dora. Everyone else comes and goes. (Hanners comes close but I suspect the focus on her is by virtue of being a new character rather than a main one).

P.S. I gave this a more meaningful title - I hope you don't mind. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think after recent developments Sven should be moved to primary. However, Raven and Steve are debatable at this point. As Irrevenant said, the story arcs vary and there can be considerable time between mentions of secondary characters. Even some primary characters disappear, as Sara did. NightKhaos (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sven is still secondary to the other characters...he comes and goes while the others are constantly featured. After Jeph wraps up this little story line, I have a feeling Sven will fade again. If after this he *still* remains high-profile, then we should reconsider. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone counted up how many times each character has appeared? I suspect Sven may now have been in more strips than Steve. —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All gone.

Am I the first person on the internet to notice that QC has gone "poof?" Or is this only happening to me? EDIT: Go to the QC website. It's totally blank except for the words "All gone." in the upper left corner.

Yeah, I see it to, I was waiting for the next comic. Now it says "The website you are looking for has moved." Very odd, almost suspect hacking. Qoose 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Found the explanation. Moving to a new server. See http://forums.questionablecontent.net/.

A fine idea, but the forums have moved as well. [0930 BST, 1 May 2007] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.67.248 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Check Jeph's livejournal: http://qcjeph.livejournal.com/ . Just a server move, nothing to worry about. 80.60.173.108 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ponderous online community? I think not!

I was just reading this, and read that the community is ponderous. I have always understood this word to mean boring, though the Oxford American Dictionary defines ponderous thusly: dull, laborious, or excessively solemn; or slow and clumsy because of great weight. While the whole lot of us, collected in a single room, bight be these things, unconfined by the physically limitless Internet and Jeph's sawnk forums, we certainly are not.

I suggest "esoteric" as an alternative. Cheers! Don 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Dora Bisexual?

I think she is. And several comics would support the fact.

Whether you think it or not, doesn't necessarily make it fact. Unless there is a strip where she states it outright, or there is an interview in which Jeph states it explicitly, it is still nothing more than speculation. --Dogbreathcanada 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. And given the multiple references to it, i've put it in as "perhaps-bisexual". --John_Abbe 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone tries to add it to the article again, check the blackboard here to see an in-comic reference to her NOT being a lesbian/bisexual.

It just says "not a lesbian". Considering Dora has a) been caught playing grabass with Faye (when cornered by the Vespabot) and b) wanted to take Tai home (presumably for some playtime) when she first met her, I'd say the idea that Dora is bi is, if not exactly confirmed, at the very least a very likely possibility; it's just never been explored. Honestly, I don't think it's a major facet of her character the way she's portrayed, but it does seem as if she's at the very least rather flexible. Haikupoet 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not just speculative. Dora herself says "I made out with one of the DJs one night and then never returned her phone calls" in http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=404 The only reason to add "possibly" is that she may not herself identify as bi, but it's arguable whether that even matters. --John_Abbe 06:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to think in terms of orientation vs. identity? In terms of orientation, bisexual is the best description of her behavior. And though we can't know her identity for certain until she states it explicitly, if a straight woman suggested and even bragged about bisexual activities/fantasies as much as Dora it would be quite rude - and not the type of playful rudeness that most of QC's girls exhibit.Emoticon (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is now confirmed. 74.134.102.99 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm sorry, but I find it idiotic that someone's complaining of a lack of racial diversity. Given that this story is set in Boston, my understanding is that this quite well fits the average population there. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Bo-Lingua 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't set in Boston. It is set in Northampton, although I don't think this fact affects your argument.Eppythatcher 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck, this comic probably has more racial diversity than most other webcomics. At least this one HAS some non-white characters. Most don't. Mrmoocow 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Jacques' lack of racial diversity, since he probably has little contact with anything other than a caucasian social group. This seems to be borne out with his inclusion of some very very recent non-caucasian characters (probably as an answer to the complaints) who have been written as though they were caucasian -- a mirror, perhaps, on Jacques' lack of insight into any minority cultures. --Dogbreathcanada 06:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that Boston is Boston, but let's please not comment on Jeff's ability or lackof to write minority characters. First off, "written as though they were caucasian" implies that black people, or whatnot cannot act like white people, which is false: more importantly, it's not the point of this wiki to speculate. David Fuchs 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

there are people of various races, if you looked at the customers the coffee of doom gets, or that burrito place, or meena or amir. in boston, there's a distinct lack of latinos, so that may account for some of it, and it's not in actual boston, it's in one of the suburban areas, and considering i've lived there for a long time, the diversity is limited. Itachi1452 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC): Whether there is a lack of racial diversity or not in the strip is irrelevant. As an anonymous user points out in the next subsection, the point of Wikipedia is not to provide a review of the webcomic. More to the point, the webcomic itself does not seem to be exploring issues of racial diversity, which would also make the criticism of a lack of racial diversity irrelevant. It's a webcomic and can be as real or as unreal as the artist so desires.

• NORTHAMPTON IS NOT BOSTON, NOR IS IT EVEN A SUBURB OF BOSTON, IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STATE! You people are so ignorant, you obviously know nothing of Massachusetts' geography and yet you jump at the chance to criticise our lack of "diversity"? First of all, Latino is not a "race" contrary to what most Californians think, however we do have a large Brazilians community, not to mention sizable enclaves of Dominicans and Puerto Ricans. We have virtually no Mexicans, which, I'm sorry, does not make us bad or ignorant or culturally homogenous. And seriously, "act caucasian"? The only obviously caucasian character in the comic is Amir, who could be Persian, Armenian, Georgian, or Azerbaijani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, you know that "caucasian" means "white", right? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually, it means someone from the Causasus region; Georgian, Chechen, etc. Caucasian is only commonly used to mean white people in general in the US.KVND 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is any lack of diversity going on, it's that the characters of the strip are mostly young, mostly college-educated indie/metal/alternative music fans with an interest in technology. In my experience, most of the people who fall under this category in the United States happen to be white. Even in very diverse areas this tends to be the case, although to a somewhat lesser degree.

Because of this, someone in the central character's position could appear to be racially prejudiced even though he is merely selecting friends based on shared interests, a common and reasonable criterion for friendship. Most likely, Jacques is merely drawing ideas from his world, where he has made similarly innocent choices. There are certainly broad social issues which play into this, but I think it is fallacious to attribute prejudice to Jacques or his characters. Emoticon (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism 2

I think the criticism of the comic is loaded with biased language.

Calling Jaques' life experiences "narrow" is not enxyclopaedic material. It's opinion, it's un-verifiable, judgemental...

The bit about the inconsistency in wearing other people's clothing, while evidenced properly with comics, is padded out with repetition and negative connotations like in an argumentative essay. (her hangup of germs gone in favour of the quick joke/Character traits inexplicably flip-flop according to the expediency of the quick joke)

It goes on: (...narrowly-conceived middle-class hipster fantasy land...)

how is it not narrowly conceived? his strip is populated with slim attractive people (where are the overweight people? especially in a country like the US where being overweight is almost epidemic?) and the problems that people face in the strip are resolved in facile ways? --Dogbreathcanada 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in QC-world (not the real world, as has been pointed out more than once) the obesity problem has been licked by technology. Anyway, as a fatso I don't feel oppressed by having one less opportunity to look at fictional fatsos. —Tamfang 03:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of strips whose primary subject is Faye's curvy physique, and Hannelore is consistently drawn with baggy eyes and unruly hair - plus, they're cartoon characters, so it's very difficult to make beauty judgements. Thus, it cannot be said that the population is entirely thin or entirely attractive. Also, you commit the Fallacy of division. That 40% of America is obese does not guarantee that any 40% of any grouping of Americans will be obese. In fact, people in urban areas are less likely to be obese, as are young people and more educated people. My suspension of disbelief is undaunted. Emoticon 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

so yeah, the point of these criticism sections is to learn what people think about the comic, but not for people to bag the hell out of it right?

incidentally, Jeph Jacques says: [QC has little or nothing to do with my personal life.]http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,9135.0.html

it might have nothing specific to do with his personal life (although he has stated that the characters are a conglomeration of people he knows), but it is certainly a reflection on his experiences as a "hipster". --Dogbreathcanada 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same. This section needs to be rewritten and some bits taken out completely (narrowly conceived middle-class hipster fantasy land being a prime example). Any ideas as to where reasonable criticism of QC can be found? Vanityjunkie 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the crap again, since it should not belong in its current form. If it is added again, remove it. I have talked to that user, and he keeps on adding the same thing, I might have to block him if he keeps doing it. While there is nothing wrong with critique, it must be written from a NPOV. No idea where you would find it though. David Fuchs 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not NPOV, and represents original research. The point of Wikipedia isn't to review webcomics. 195.28.231.13 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

besides, what do you mean no fat people? faye's always complaining about her weight. Itachi1452 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One criticism that I think should be returned to the article is the bit about them talking about rather obscure bands. Is this in keeping with the tone of the strip? Yes. And while I love the stories, characters, etc, 99% of the time I don't know of the bands they're talking about. I would imagine there are others out there like me as well, since this criticism was in the article at one point in time. --156.34.84.90 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow QC slavically and I don't know any of the bands either. That's not criticism though, it's just a fact. I don't mind and I'm not bothered by it. If it should be included in the article, it needs notability, attribution and sources. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavically? Like, you read it in Polish? —Tamfang 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You know just as well as I do that I meant "like a slave". There's absolutely no reason to mock me for misunderstanding a word, especially when it's not my native language. Or did you actually mean to add something to the discussion with that? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How was I to know what is your native language? *sigh* Fine, I'll try to remember not to make jokes. —Tamfang 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The word I was looking for was slavishly, by the way. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

how dare you get all pissy because you can't remember words and people try to understand you. Use a thesaurus or dictionary if you don't know the word you mean. There are plenty of free online resources that will help you. Don't ever tell someone they they should "know just as well as [you] do what you mean to say, because this is the INTERNET. There is no "hidden knowledge", we can't read your mind. If you want to say something, say it, don't hide behind unfamiliarity with the given language to make a point, that's not what Wikipedia is about. You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Ceas webmaster 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't escalate this on my account. —Tamfang 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

>> Myself, I feel like QC suffers from "Dragon Ball Z" syndrome: months of strips pass, yet the storylines are so drawn out and repetitive that you give up on waiting for something of interest to happen. I guess that's the key to keeping a cash cow webcomic, though. (Doc Lobster)

Beatrice Chatham?

Shouldn't Hannelore's mom be added somewhere to the characters? They've given quite a bit of info on her... Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree...but I don't have time to do so. Anyone want to go back like 200 strips and put in all the Hanners' mom info? Madkayaker 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PC history

A small quibble with the last edit annotation, "a mac cannot be a PC". I'm old enough to remember that the term PC for personal computer was in generic use, applicable to Apple and Commodore products etc, before IBM adopted it as a trademark. On another hand, I agree with the change itself, from "PC" to "computer". —Tamfang 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it should say "Apple AnthroPC" and not "Macintosh anthromorphic computer". Just my two cents though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I prefer thinking of PC as just a computer used by a person, but that's just not how it is any more :\ :\ :\. Anyway, it looks more like an iPod to me than a computer anyway. Is it? --Rebent 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It's an over-sized iPod with legs and arms. I think just calling it whatever they call it in the comic is the easiest and best solution. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sara the coffee shop girl

Why is there no info on her?

Wasn't she working at the coffeeshop and liked Marten and viceversa before?

aeryka 00:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Sara the Coffee Shop girl? The girls working at Coffee of Doom are Dora, Faye, Raven and Penelope. Faye is the first female shown in the comic, in #3. I don't recall anyone named Sara... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some reading tells me I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, I suppose she has faded out then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She appeared in some of the early comics. IIRC the author mentioned something about simply getting tired of drawing her in one of his newsposts. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the author say she was eaten by an allosaur? —Tamfang 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See the cast list, all the way at the bottom. Amphy 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but she's still technically a character; she still appears on the cast page. So, really, she should have a mention, no? Ediblespread 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Frankiefan, who edited the entry I put in for Sara, to correct my spelling/grammar and add in a bit of info I forgot. Note to self: Don't try to edit a wiki article when that tired... :D PS: Can someone stick in some references? I still don't get how to do them >_<. Probable references are comic 66, 325 and possibly 370, which is the last comic to have the drawing of Sara (in 371 it is gone, assumedly replaced with the lube drawing... but then again, the new drawing doesnt cover the space where it was... --86.135.227.107 13:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sara" has also been referred to as "Sarah" in the strip. I'm not certain if one is verifiably "correct", but perhaps some mention might be made? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Jeph Jacques

Can people please remember that this page is for discussing the Questionable Content article here on wikipedia, and only the article. This page is far too full of people taking hissy fits at one another and criticisms about Jeph and his work. That is not on. Ediblespread 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Are the references on the page out of sync, or just plain wrong? Or am I missing something, and does http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=691 actually relate to Faye seeing a therapist whatsoever? That's reference 24 btw, I haven't checked any others because I am extremely lazy.86.140.184.205 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, comic 691 is a reference to Natasha, not Faye. Root⁴(one) 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On primary sources

Actaully, I retract my last edit comment on revision 174470873. I'm not sure this needs any more primary sources. The article already has at least 3 non-primary sources (including at least one book reference, if accurate). BTW, Scott McCloud is a pretty damn good non-primary IMO. Any article on a web comic is going to refer to specific comics, so by its very nature is going to have a significant number of primary sources. Root⁴(one) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well-referenced and quite well written... but very few third party sources

That's my analysis of this article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Extravagant use of copyrighted images

What is the justification for the character images? Wikipedia aims to minimise the use of copyrighted content. Band articles are forbidden from including album covers, this seems to be an analogous case. Skomorokh 15:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, not only are the images being used to represent the comic and characters in question, but the copyright holder has granted permission for their use in compliance with the fair-use licensing (which is listed on each and every image). Band articles may be forbidden from including album covers, but this is a completely different category, which covers a visual art form and not an aural one. Since the images are small and contained to two limited areas of the article, I would hardly qualify the use of these images to be "extravagant". I believe that may have been a poor choice of words on the part of Skomorokh. I believe the poster of the images on the page has complied with Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhisattvaspath (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I was just thinking that it would be cool to give a timeline for the strip, like for which strips correspond to which days and such. It would take a lot of work, but i'd be willing to make a project of it if anyone thinks it is a good idea. Yes i know there isn't a solid number of days, not a continuous timeline, but i think if we tried to at least clear it up it would add something to the article. Yahmes (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK... why? No, seriously, why? Why work on a detailed timeline for a webcomic strip that runs in chronological order? I can't think of this having any purpose other than random trivia made specifically for the wiki, which is just silly. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i was at least thinking some more research into how many days there have been, and just keeping track of the days, i dunno, apparently its a crappy idea...any other thoughs?Yahmes (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be deliberately harsh, it just seems like (a) an overly labor intensive undertaking (b) not beneficial in any real way (c) likely would fall square into the "original research" catagory since the only way to verify any claim would be to undertake the previously mentioned labor intensive project that has even less value this time because it's done simply to check someone else's worth for validity. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

point taken, though i might do this as an individual projectYahmes (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means do, and bring it up here to see if and how it can be incorporated. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've kept a log with the info requested, and once summarized it in the article (under the heading "Questionable Duration"); but it was removed as excessive detail. Summary: Time is vague before about strip #57, but that period includes at least five days. After #57, almost every day has a clear beginning and end, which can be recognized by changes of shirts even when there's nothing in the strip to indicate morning or bedtime. New days begin with strips #68, 81; 100, 119, 139, 164, 186, 214, 237, 270, 310; 351, 384; 396, 418, 431 (a Monday), 464, 510, 535, 570, 581, 605, 623, 648, 687, 723; 751, 764, 787, 807, 834; 849, 879; 898, 913, 928, 952, 970, 989; 1010; 1025; 1049, 1060, 1080; 1111; 1130. Where I've put a semicolon, there is nothing in dialog to suggest how long it has been since the previous day; a comma means the days are tied together by some mention of "yesterday" or "last night" or "tomorrow". Others may of course disagree with my reckoning. #1058-9 happen late at night, and #1060 is the next morning, but it's not clear whether or not #1058 is on the same day as #1049-57. —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

#1255 is unusual: it appears to be a new day (Dora has a new shirt) but starts in the evening. —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the log: 1130, 1150; 1171, 1201; 1226; 1255, 1258, 1267; 1287; 1301, 1305; 1310; 1311. The structure of days lately is vaguer than it was for a long time; if not for changes of shirts, it would be impossible to discern. —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Secondary Characters

Can we please refrain from adding characters with no lines the day that they appear in the comic? "Recurring Characters" would be a better was to describe what this section should be getting at; those characters that are only seen infrequently but certainly not one-liners. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed...I'd be even more strict than that...I mean, we don't see such minor characters added to television character lists or other such types. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, by nature of the comic the various secondary characters are important; the ones that truely fall into that catagory are seen with a kind of regularity. A guy with no dialog (And was he in a previous one? I cannot remember.) does not count.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he was in one previous strip where he read his abysmal poetry to Sven. Still, two ≠ important or even "secondary". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I suggest we axe or at least dramatically trim the secondary characters section. Most of those characters described within will not help the average reader understand the plot, and many are simply trivial mentions or consist of nothing but trivial content (such as the cat, et al.) As per WP:WAF, we should not give undue weight to this aspect of the comic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. Unless there is a significant valid argument in favour of keeping this material, I'll axe it in a few days. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph in Setting section

This really does not pertain to the setting of the comic. It's more to do with the style and or presentation. I also suggest an addendum to the comics put up when Jeph is gone to include the "Sweet-Tits" character. --Blitzvergnugen (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters and such

I've cleaned up the obvious original research and tangental minutae from the characters list, as well as those clearly not important to a layman's understanding of the story, but I did want to get some feedback before I went further. I want to just merge the minor/major character templates together, but I also think we should axe some more of the characters (mostly Amir and Natasha) and then just reformat the list (I guess we could add image thumbs for all the characters then). Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing Amir and Natasha; maybe also Tai (although that's just personal opinion, and there's no objective way to draw a line between 'minor' and 'major'...no matter who we get rid of, there will probably be someone out there complaining, but oh well). Merging the lists shouldn't be a big problem, either...an easy way to go about it might be just to list the characters in order of appearance, rather than major/minorness. (The only problem I can think of with that is that Steve would then end up above some characters who show up more often than he does--such as Dora and Raven--and Pintsize would be at the very top...but we can tweak the rules a little, and besides, everyone likes Pintsize!) --Politizer (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've merged together the lists, leaving little gaps for pics if we add them. I agree with removing Tai, although I agree with the difficulty in deciding who to keep and such. (Amir and co. don't and haven't played very crucial status-quo-changing roles, if that could be used as the benchmark.) I figure it makes sense to keep the list's order the same way, just because Martin-Dora-Faye sort of overlap a bit and should be next to each other for reading purposes. On a related note, what do you think about moving the Synopsis setting above background and publication? usually I prefer it where it is, but if we're going to be talking about Marten and his robot, and how Faye's addition to the strip changed Jacques plan's for the strip, it makes sense to tell them who the characters are earlier in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about the synopsis...but I dunno, I feel like it might be all right where it is. The part that mentions Faye doesn't say a lot of specific stuff about her, and it describes her as "a female character, Faye"--seeming to imply that what's important isn't that the character he added was Faye, but that he added a female character (just about any female will do) and that is what gave him new ideas for the strip. And pretty much the same thing for the mention of AnthroPCs in the Setting section. ...From my personal experience, at least, the Characters sections of Wikipedia articles are mostly just for quick reference; I rarely read through from start-to-finish, but just like having them there to check out or refer to, and if that is what we decide to go for in this article then I don't think we really need them to be above the Background & Publication sections. For a compromise, we could wikilink the places where Faye and the robot, having them point the reader to the Characters table... --Politizer (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS

This article contains spoilers from start to finish... maybe something can be done about it. Maybe a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.203.23 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a couple lines from the intro that contained spoilers (most notably the description of Dora as "Marten's girlfriend," since that doesn't happen until halfway through the comic) and also the long list of supporting characters in that section. Other than that, I didn't see anything outside of the Synopsis section that struck me as being a spoiler, and within the Synopsis section it is implied that there will be spoilers and readers are entering at their own risk (see WP:SW). --Politizer (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Old, but still: The entirety of Wikipedia is implied to have spoilers. There is no call for spoiler warnings and less call for removal of material based solely on it possibly being a spoiler. Of course, if something has no purpose other than being a spoiler that is another thing, but that is not the case here. Just a future FYI. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. That message from me above (Politizer=rjanag, it's just my old username), was just in my first week or so of being a Wikipedian. Oh, how I've grown :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I honestly think that Wikipedia should require a quiz before users are allowed to make changes more than 10kb in size. :P I decided to put the response there so that I wouldn't have to deal with it later. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense usage in character description

Hey,

Regarding this sentence in Marten's bio: "Marten lives with Faye, whom he is romantically interested in for many months, but is now dating Dora"...an unregistered user recent changed it to "was romantically interested," and Huntster reverted the edit in good faith because generally fiction is written in present tense. But, come to think of it, I actually like it better in the past, and here's why...

The character bios section strikes me more as a summary of where the characters are at this point in time, sort of a frozen image of right now, rather than a section recounting plot. If it were recounting plot, it would be appropriate to write it in present tense ("ie. Marten and Faye go to get ice cream. And then they talk."), but since it's a snapshot of a particular moment in the strip's history, it makes sense to put the past events in the past. Some precedents: for Pintsize it reads "was the second character introduced in the comic's first strip," for Winslow "Though Winslow was initially taunted by Pintsize," and for Natasha "she dumped both Amir and Deathmøle."

So anyway, I changed it back to past for now. Sorry about reverting you, Huntster. --Politizer (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think technically it still should be in present. The pintsize reference refers to real-world action (publication of the strip) so it can be past tense. see WP:WAF (I could be wrong). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm...what if we reword it to make it more clear that it is referring to the earlier days of the strip...for example, "Marten lives with Faye, in whom he was romantically interested for much of the early part of Questionable Content" or something similar? --Politizer (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But what's "the early part"? How about: There is sexual tension between them, until Faye announces in #500 [or thereabouts] that she is not ready for intimacy? —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Twitter

Anyone think there should be a section on the recent Twitter accounts given to each character? I find it definetly something worthwhile, may even influence the poplarity of Twitter itself. Anyway, I know I'm not going to add the section, so if anyone's so inclined, justa suggestion...

• Check the external links policy. Somehow I don't think that these would be relevant enough to merit inclusion. DP76764 (Talk) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is hardly notable in and of itself, except amongst the small community that might follow these tweets. I'm not sure how this could possibly influence the popularity of Twitter, considering it is extraordinarily popular already...even NASA is using it as a community outreach device. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear elsewhere that the tweets contain canonical plot info, so I reckon they're relevant – if JJ keeps it up; it seems like the sort of experiment that might well be abandoned within a month. (Project Thingy, anyone?) —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As the site explicitly states here, unless the tweet indicates otherwise, they are by default considered a separate storyline (or perhaps, not part of any real storyline). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement falls well short of saying they're non-canonical, though; I see no justification for your "perhaps". Plenty of strips, too, are independent of any particular story arc. —Tamfang (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

space station

Some of the memorable technological creations in QC are ... human colonies on the International Space Station; ...

Is the ISS mentioned at all? Hannelore says in #665: "...daddy spends most of his time on the space station. ... No, he just has his own space station. That's actually where I grew up." [emphasis added] —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hannelore threatens at one point to move to the moon, which may or may not imply existing settlement there. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Marigold

I'm inclined to revert the addition of Marigold to the "characters" section, as she's just shown up and may be a one-off. I'm going to wait on this to see where Jeph takes her, though, and for comment by others. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done. She and the others added are minor characters. We have no need to list anything other than the major players. Heck, I think Winslow and Steve should be removed as well, but I won't go there without more support. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree; but I think that Marigold is a breakout character, as of late. Just wanted to stay on the bleeding edge. (sorry for the inconvenience.) --68.231.164.52 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

character counts

To help resolve the issues of major vs minor characters, I counted appearances of each character up to #1425 #1469, excluding guest strips. I didn't bother logging waitresses, bartenders, policemen and the like. I included characters shown in dreams and flashbacks, or speaking from out of view, but not the unheard side of phone calls.

character name	number of strips
Faye	893
Marten	858
Dora	619
Hannelore	262
Pintsize	216
Raven	143
Steve	138
Sven	118
Penelope	103
Tai	64
Ellen	62
Winslow	49
Angus	37
Wil	31
Natasha	30
Veronica	25
Amir	24
Marigold	19
Lydia	18
Amanda	18
Meena	17
Mrs Chatham	13
Yelling Bird	11
Jimbo	10
Corrine	9
VespAvenger	9
Momo-tan	9
Peter Bianchi	8
Mieville (Dora's cat)	7
Sara	7
the Roomba	6
Mrs Whitaker	6
Genevieve	6
turkeys	5
Alan Turing	5

I hope this Hanneloresque exercise is of some use. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Hannaloresque is correct! That's impressive work there. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At this rate Marigold will earn her own entry in another month or two. No one else has moved in the rankings lately. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)