This is an archive of past discussions about Questionable Content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think it's getting a bit long/unwieldy. We should either pare it down to the "best-of" or make it a list page. My two cents. Bo-Lingua15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to change the article to reflect that: "Questionable Content is a slice-of-life comedy webcomic, which sucks balls ...." —Tamfang08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It'd need a citation.
Character List Too Long
We should try and shorten up the character bios a bit. Some of them (ex. Hannelore) are far too long and I think most people won't bother to read much of it unless they're hardcore fans of the series. --Rubiksphere08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to edit some of the Character bios down some...I somewhat succeded, but you're right. Hannelore's is still to big, even with me deleting and shortening many of the sentences.
I also deleted the secondary characters that has single day gags. I mean, why on earth was the Record store cashier up there?
Hi, I'm an unregistered, but I'm going to try my hand at shortening the character biographies. I edited Marten's yesterday (3/19) and since my edits and citations of events are still here today (3/20) I guess it's safe to assume Wikipedia is happy with the edits? I'm going to re-edit the bios for Faye and Dora today as I edited Marten's and see if y'all like them, and if so, I'll continue editing them like I did for Marten's. Please let me know if my edits are not exactly what you want.
--Unregistered user
Hi, I'm already working on this, so I'd appreciate it if you'd look over my proposed edits at the bottom of the page and tell me what you think. Nobody's said anything, so I think I'm going to instate them today.Rmj1234515:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I decided to register. :-D I'll grab continuity if you're already on bios. The new ones look pretty awesome already.
I'm going to move Hannelore to the minor characters section. She's one of the most major minor characters, but she's not in either major sphere, she's not an original character, and she only shows up about once every fifty episodes. Rmj1234517:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
She makes jokes about Faye's figure, as do most characters in the strip; that doesn't mean she's hitting on her. But whether or not she's attracted to Faye, the bit about her bisexuality needs to be taken out. While she has not stated her sexuality explicitly, she's also never pursued a relationship with a woman (though she hasn't really pursued any relationships with anyone except Marten). As it is not stated explicitly in the strip, it's speculation and constitutes original research, which of course is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If there are no objections, I'll take it out sometime in the next few days.Rmj1234507:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an objection if you mean to leave it as "is bisexual" or remove bisexuality completely. I think that "may be bisexual" is perfectly accurate however. Dora has made more than a few jokes about herself and other women but i cannot recall if she has ever seriously and clearly stated her sexuality. So I am good with may be and bad with anything else unless someone can point to a serious statement by Dora or, better yet, by Jeph to that effect. WookMuff07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying whether or not she's bisexual one way or the other. I'm just saying that it's not a published interpretation. According to the Wikipedia policy on original research, OR is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." I believe that stating even the possibility of her bisexuality is original research, as it constitutes unpublished speculation/arguments. Just because she mentioned making out with one woman in the past (I don't remember another reference) and makes jokes about Faye's figure is not sufficent evidence to label her as bisexual, and just because she has not confirmed her heterosexuality in the strip does not mean that we can put it in there. If lack of absolute confirmation of heterosexuality is grounds for stating possible bisexuality, then you could put that every character in the strip may be bisexual. What if I changed the text to "Dora has referenced making out with women in the past.", with reference? Rmj1234508:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont think that it would be fair to call Dora bisexual. She seems mildly interested in women, but considering the overall view of her in the entire strip, I wouldn't call her bisexual. Also, Raven has once stated that she made out with another girl after getting drunk once. But that doesn't mean that she's bi.
Christoph Jenkins19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you say to people that compare your character Pintsize with Invader Zim's Gir?
I don't really mind, itÕs not like I can control the associations that people make in their brains. I loved Invader Zim but I do try to make Pintsize as non-Gir-like as possible. Gir is insane and possibly retarded. Pintsize is perfectly sane and intelligent, he just has an odd sense of humor due to years of constant exposure to the Internet.
So, do you think we could add a mention of this to pintsize's (it took me ten goes to type that word) character description? Something along the lines of Many people draw comparisons between Pintsize and GIR, a robotic mischiefmaker from the television show Invader Zim. In and interview Jeph Jacques stated "I loved Invader Zim but I do try to make Pintsize as non-Gir-like as possible. Gir is insane and possibly retarded. Pintsize is perfectly sane and intelligent, he just has an odd sense of humor due to years of constant exposure to the Internet."
I'm really not seeing any sourcing for this-most of what's written, especially about the characters, seems to be an original analysis of what the various comics may mean. Unless these analyses can be supported by reliable sources, the article needs to be cleaned to what's actually and unambiguously shown in the primary sources shown, rather then analysis such as "Dora may be bisexual" and many other such examples. Seraphimblade12:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Notability
Does the fact that the comic, per Alexa.com, has been averaging around 200 million hits a day average for the last 4 months[1] mean anything? One would think the traffic alone is a sign of notability, at least in my mind. Bo-Lingua20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And that attitude is exactly why Wikipedia itself won't be notable ten years from now (too bad it's not a crystal ball, either!) Notability is not popularity, but popularity by definition IS notability. You can't be NOTED by millions of people without being NOTABLE. That's like saying you can burn without being flammable or be safely ingested without being edible. There are other forms of notability besides popularity, but it's impossible to be popular and not notable. Wikipedia's growing blind spot is actually irrelevant here, though: winning awards from an independent source is specifically cited as one way to establish notability. This topic is therefore notable by Wikipedia's narrow-to-the-point-of-irrelevance standards. I could sign in so as to sign my comment more efectively, but at this point I don't want the stink of this "community" on me. 68.13.21.22520:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your logic entirely. It's not mutually exclusive. If 200 million people visit a landmark a day, you would say that it's notable. How is this webpage any different? For that matter, if it were only a million people a day, it would be notable enough for wikipedia's standards, I should think. Bo-Lingua23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point (though you may want to bring up your concerns at WT:N, they'll be heard by a lot more people there!) I wish there were a better term for "notability". "Encyclopedic suitability" is probably more precise, but it's damnably unwieldy too. "Notability" is something of a fuzzy term-most people do indeed think of "notability" of something in terms of how widely it's known, how popular it is, and so on. The basic trouble of not using notability, however, is this. We're forbidden from engaging in original research, which means if secondary sources haven't reported on something, we're basically stuck with very trivial observations without violating that. A list of characters, the basic and indisputable ways in which they've interacted (Dora is Martin's girlfriend, Faye lives with him, Pintsize is his robot, Hannelore has OCD) will work, but any synthesis which would make the article interesting also violates NOR. Now that's not to say it's not a good comic, or a popluar one-I love it, I've been reading it for quite some time! But I like quite a few things that aren't suitable for articles here. I hope this isn't one of them-I would imagine secondary sources exist somewhere, and I'm sure trying to find them, but I've come up empty so far. The easiest way to solve this would just be to put forth some reliable secondary sourcing for this, would settle the whole matter. Seraphimblade00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, there are valid concerns there. I'll admit my previous comment was hot-headed (though thank you for not pretending, as so many on this here interweb do, that the presence of anger invalidates any underlying point). It just seems like the prevailing mindset at Wikipedia is a bit, er, schizophrenic with regards to this. I know that the comment page on a random webcomic isn't the best place to effect global change, so I won't bother ranting here any further. 68.13.21.22501:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The first is probably not usable, since it's just a blog. The second is from a major newspaper, though. Anyone want to insert a mention that QC is being used for a "create a comic" activity for kids in New Haven? GarryKosmos05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try and cut major character bios down to four or five sentences and minor character bios down to two or three, and then take the OR cut off of the article. I'm also going to add the character illustrations from the strip's cast page. I'll email Jeph or put a notice in about it, and I'll propose edits here before I go through with them. Thanks! Rmj1234518:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am also going to change the main comic to reflect the new artistic style. I got permission from Jeph. Rmj1234519:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Marten proposal -
'Marten Reed.Marten Reed' - Marten is an indie rock fan and musician originally from California[1], where he also went to college. He has been living with Faye, whom he was romantically interested in for many months, and is now in a romantic relationship with Dora.[2] Marten is in a band named "Deathmøle" with friends Amir and Natasha.[3] He works in the Smith College library.[4]
Faye proposal -
'Faye Whitaker.'Faye Whitaker - Faye works at the Coffee of Doom with Dora and lives with Marten. Faye rarely used contractions in her speech, except when drunk, when her Southern accent would emerge. .[5] She moved up to Northampton from Savannah, Georgia two years after a mental breakdown, after witnessing her father's suicide. .[6] She has resumed therapy. .[7] She is known for a quick wit and a sharp tongue, usually used in affection.[8]
Dora proposal -
'Dora Bianchi.Dora Bianchi - Dora is an ex-goth who owns and operates "Coffee of Doom", the coffee shop where Faye, Raven and Penelope work and where Marten spends most of his time. She is in a romantic relationship with Marten. Unlike most of the main characters, she prefers metal to indie rock.[9] Dora does graphic and web design in her spare time, and she has a pet cat named Mieville who becomes jealous of most other males in her life (except Marten). .[10]
Archiving "Duration" section
I've cut the Duration section for OR, but I'm going to leave it here because I think it's kind of a valuable fan resource....it may be OR, but it's damn good OR.
Duration
Although the comic updates daily from Monday to Friday, the brevity of each individual strip coupled with maintaining continuity and plot often results in any given sequence of events (even those covering only a few hours) may take several strips to complete and/or resolve. Therefore, many days, weeks or months may pass in real time while the events of the QC take place over a few hours. The exact amount of time that has passed from the beginning of QC until the present has never been officially declared, though it is possible to track small periods of time within the strips themselves.
The following are spans of time that are clearly defined in the comic, as common events, clothing, execution of plans, and references to "yesterday" and "tomorrow" by the characters carry throughout the given span of strips.
Strips 1 through 21 (excepting #14) cover two consecutive days. Strip #14 is a stand-alone strip and does not advance the plot. Strip #15 resumes where Strip #13 ended.
Strips 22 through 27 (excepting #24) cover one day. Strip #24 is a guest strip.
Strips 28 through 32 cover one day.
Strips 33 through 48 (excepting #34) cover two consecutive days. Strip #34 is a Halloween special edition strip.
Strips 49 through 55 cover one day.
Strips 57 (December 11, 2003) through 99 (March 14, 2004) cover three consecutive days.
Strips 100 (March 16, 2004) through 350 (May 1, 2005) cover nine consecutive days.
Strips 351 (May 2, 2005) through 395 (July 3, 2005) cover two consecutive days.
Strips 751 through 834 (March 7, 2007) cover three consecutive days.
The gaps between strips are the main obstacles for determining the exact duration of QC history. The amount of time between strips 21 and 22 is indeterminable. Between strips 22 and 398, there are eight gaps of time between strips separating spans of consecutive or individual days of QC time. Of these eight gaps, there are two bits of dialogue which give some perspective on passage of time during gaps, but do not explicitly give an amount of time. The first occurs in strip 315 - the real estate agent informs Marten and Faye that they should be able to move their belongings into the new apartment "next week," implying that the gap between strip 350 and strip 351 is around a week in length since strips 351 through 395 cover the two consecutive days where Marten and Faye pack up and move into their new apartment. However the exact duration of that gap is largely subject to individual interpretation.
The second bit of dialogue alluding to a passage of time over a gap between strips occurs in strip 398 when Dora notes that Faye has been sleeping on Marten's couch for several months (she started rooming there in strip #22). Since the strip has only had 21 explicit days at this point, this statement implies that at least one of the seven remaining gaps between the strips is many weeks (possibly even months) long, but less than a year. Since the gaps of time are largely indeterminable and there are only two vague markers of time within the dialogue to account for the lapses of time, determining the passage of time in those gaps is a primarily subjective decision to be made by each individual reader.
Here's my proposal to change the minor characters - I've made very, very significant cuts. I still have to edit and add Hannelore to the list.
Penelope Gaines works at "Coffee of Doom" with Faye, Raven, and Dora. She is frequently compared to another minor character, "Pizza Girl". [11].
Tai is Marten's boss at the Smith Library. She is a student at Smith and a lesbian with a very active love life. She is a great fan of Jimbo's romance novels.
Angus McPhee, or "Argument Guy".[12], comes into the "Coffee of Doom" for the sole purpose of arguing and bickering with Faye.
Sven Bianchi is Dora's tall, skinny older brother. He is a musician with a very active love life and libido, though he has claimed to have calmed down. [13].
Natasha is Ellen's roommate, Amir's girlfriend, and a member of the band "Deathmøle" with Amir and Marten. Formerly had Marten's position at the Smith library.
Amir Afridi is Natasha's boyfriend and a member of "Deathmøle".
Jimbo is Marten's drinking buddy. He is a former construction worker who has found success writing romance novels..
Winslow is Hannelore's AnthroMac.
Dr. Corrine Buenvenida is Faye's new psychiatrist.
Amanda Whitaker is Faye's lesbian younger sister. She recently dropped out of college and moved in with their mother in Georgia.
Mrs. Whitaker is Faye and Amanda's mother. She is very protective of both of her daughters.
Veronica Reed is Marten's mother. She is divorced from Marten's father, who subsequently came out of the closet. Ms. Reed was once a famous fetish model, and now works as a professional dominatrix. As a side job, Miss Reed works on a website, making "erotic films" of herself stomping on fruit in high heels. Her Vance persona was something of an idol of Dora's.
Scott was Marten's old boss when Marten worked as an "office bitch" in an anonymous office. He was fired along with Marten.
The VespAvenger is a woman who attacks men for their percieved ill treatment of men. She has been arrested for multiple assaults.
Alan Turing works as a Special Agent with the Robotics Defense Agency. He tried to confiscate Pintsize because of a laser in his eyes, and arrested the "VespAvenger". Was beaten up by Dora in grade school.
Looks good to me. Would it be redundan.t to note that Faye's mother is a widow?
One minor detail regarding Pintsize - the laser actually came from his torso, around strip 60 or so. And do we want to consider giving Pizza Girl a brief bio, considering that she's made as many, if not more, appearances than some other minor characters, like Alan Turing and Scott? —Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I corrected vespAvenger, now reads "attacks men for the percieved ill treatment of women". Before it said "of men". I don't know QC well enough to say whether Ellen should be on the list, but if you describe Natasha as Ellen's roommate, shouldn't either Ellen be on the list, or the roommate description be dropped? Ambi Valent21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey DasBooch, I think we should maybe try and find that LJ comment and leave it in - it struck me as the one thing in the "duration" session that wasn't OR. Can you try an edit without this, and then I'll look into citing the LJ comment tomorrow. Thanks for all your edits - they look great! Rmj1234504:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You chose a quite different approach to the one I did when partially rewriting the El Goonish Shive article. For instance, I added a history section with subsections for art and storytelling, and put in whatever I could attribute to the comic about earlier versions and changes since then. I also put in a long section for the plot, actually the second longest of the entire article. The longest section of the EGS article is the cast section, which has been cut only a little. I'm not sure whether your or my approach is the better one; I just wanted to tell you and ask you what you think of my approach. Ambi Valent13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concentrating on this for right now, because the cast section is the most out-of-control section in this article. I think I'm going to put the secondary characters into paragraph form, and then I'm going to work up an art section and a plot section and try and cut down on the external links and focus on more third-party sources. I also need to add something about all of the awards it has won before I'm done. I focused on the characters because they had spun the most wildly out of control, with speculative nonsense like "Dora is bisexual" and other non-notable crap. Thank you for you suggestions - the article looks good, though I would cut down the plot sections a little bit to avoid cries of "OR". Rmj1234514:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I know the problem with out of control edits - that was the situation around the time of the AfD discussion, mainly in the sections of secondary characters, technology and aliens, all of which are gone now. When you cleaned up from time to time, the deleted stuff would be edited back in, and maybe more. After a series of massive edits and partial rewrites by me it has become much quieter now. Unfortunately, my series of edits seems to scare away possible peer reviewers as well, so I'm not quite sure how near the article is to following Wikipedia guidelines... Ambi Valent18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I split up the old "Overview" section of the article. I basically just moved stuff around. Parts moved into the head of the article, the main part of "Overview" is now the "Setting" section, and the last two paragraphs became a new section "Non-canonical strips" (for the lack of a better name). The new grouping of informations made more sense to me; if it doesn't make sense to you feel free to revert back. Ambi Valent00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the change from Overview to Setting, but I think maybe the non-canonical strip paragraph should be mostly deleted - I think it constitutes OR. I would, however, like to merge the OMG turkeys part - I think it adds.
I'm also going to change the minor characters section to paragraph form - one of the to-dos is to cut down on listing - and I'm going to work on cutting down external links and adding more third-party sources tonight. Thanks for your contributions! Rmj1234501:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, if by "old," you mean it hasn't been there for more than 48 hours; I know because I revamped it. ;-) It looks better now, nice work. I don't really agree that the guest strip paragraph was OR since each guest strip is stated explicitly in the archives; it was simply a matter of me looking in the archives and writing down what was already there. I won't be heartbroken if the paragraph doesn't get added back in, but I maintain it wasn't OR. —Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man05:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the course of editing the "Secondary Characters" section, I cut Faye's psychiatrist, the VespAvenger, and Agent Turing. I deleted them because they were not necessary to understanding the plot or the main characters. Hope that's okay. Rmj1234502:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey DasBooch, I like your most recent rewrite, but I'm a little concerned about paragraph length. Is there any way you could beef up Tai and the individual family paragraphs without delving into OR? Thanks. Rmj1234504:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the entire comic, but it seems to me that the change in artistic style is mainly one to more realism and more details. That the style has "notably changed" says all and nothing, so maybe that could be replaced. Ambi Valent08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read the entire comic, and to me, it looks like the artistic style changes are mostly due to Jeph's increasing skills at drawing and with Photoshop. But there's no way to back that up....Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just added a section about storytelling and the progression of his artistic skills. Tell me what you guys think. Booch, I haven't looked over your Duration edits yet, but I'm wary to have anything in there - I'm kind of tempted to heavily edit and merge with storytelling or setting. What do you think? Rmj1234515:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the new storytelling section. I'm not sure how you're going to merge duration into those sections, but I fully encourage it. I looked over it today, and there's just no way I can justify any of the work I did was not original research. While it'd be a great thing to have, I'm not sure it fits with Wikipedia's standards. Oh, I also tried beefing up the paragraphs under the secondary characters. Whatcha think? Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! I'm really not sure about the minor characters, I think maybe one per every one (or two, if we can manage it) minor character(s) would be good, plus maybe one each for Raven and Steve. Dora, Faye, and Pintsize can be managed through secondary sources, I think. I'll work on duration now. I especially like your edits to the storytelling and artistic styles btw. I think you, me, and Ambi Valent are really whipping this article into shape, it's looking TONS better. I think we can make it into a GA or FA candidate. Rmj1234516:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the names in the references by listing the name of the strip instead of the number. Anyone who wishes to know the number can simply look at the number at the end of each URL.
No...though I appreciate their edits, some of them were non-notable or OR, so I just reverted a lot of them. I want to keep a special watch on the secondary characters section, let's try to keep people from taking it out of paragraph form or adding OR. Also, I noted that somebody basically copied and pasted information from the QC cast page, and we need to stay away from that. I just put it in fairly logical order. Let's also try and stay away from anecdotes, generalizations, and analysis of characters, and just stick to the facts and keep the background information to a minimum. People are going to try and edit this every chance they get with the progression of the strip, so let's stay on top of it so it doesn't get out of control like it did. It looks great though, looking better all the time. Rmj1234522:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I re-edited the secondary characters section and saved the html onto my computer. If anyone tries to add unnecessary information like they did, I've got a clean version waiting. Oh, I'm also working on the plot summation in MS Word so I can work on it over time, and then just copy/paste it all in at once without doing a straight X hour stint on the editing page. It'll be up soon-ish.Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
One other thing I noticed....somebody keeps changing all of the references to Smith College to "Smif" college. "Smif" is a minor joke, and needs to be avoided - it has been verified in the canon that Smith is Smith, not based on it, per this strip: [2]
Also, apologies if I'm a little cranky. I was away from Wikipedia for a couple days, and got a little overwhelmed by the edits. Rmj1234522:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd change "psychiatrist" to "psychotherapist": as I understand the terminology, a psychiatrist is authorized to prescribe drugs, and (unless I've forgotten something) we've seen no evidence that drugs are part of Corrine's arsenal. —Tamfang16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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-Man03:57, 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. Rmj1234504:12, 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)
The time between Strip 432 and Strip 620 was 7 days. Different story arcs seam to take up different amounts of time. It would not surprise me at all if this entire comic takes place within 6 months or so. --Jaryth000 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of plot, how about either removing spoilers from the character description or posting a warning on the top of the page ? I'm not even midway through the strip and while I won't be losing my sleep due to the fact that I know how plot is going to be working, it's not very nice Ezhuks (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (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).
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. Qoose04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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 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. --Dogbreathcanada07:05, 3 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. Haikupoet23:58, 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_Abbe06:25, 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)
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-Lingua01:30, 3 July 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. Mrmoocow04:45, 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. --Dogbreathcanada06:36, 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 Fuchs14:37, 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. Itachi145218:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bodhisattvaspath04:14, 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)
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? --Dogbreathcanada21:11, 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. —Tamfang03:55, 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. Emoticon08:20, 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?
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". --Dogbreathcanada21:08, 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? Vanityjunkie18:41, 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 Fuchs21:22, 3 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. --156.34.84.9014:28, 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)
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. —Tamfang19:45, 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 webmaster16:22, 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)
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? Madkayaker04:24, 29 October 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?
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)
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)
Yes, but she's still technically a character; she still appears on the cast page. So, really, she should have a mention, no? Ediblespread20:16, 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... --86.135.227.10713:37, 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 | Talk21:16, 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. Ediblespread20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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
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. Skomorokh15:14, 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)
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)
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)
And keep in mind, as Yahmes stated at the beginning of this discussion, that you're only establishing a lower bound for the total number of days. Days or weeks could elapse between strips. And all bets are off if the characters are allowed to change their shirts during the day; which, come to think of it, is pretty likely if you work in a coffeehouse. Perhaps guidance can be found at this article. — Wdfarmer (talk) 07:19, 8 October 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)
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)
I think Tai should stay but I'm pretty sure she no longer has tattoos. I'm not sure if the others were fake or if Jeph just forgot but she definitely doesn't have them anymore!
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". —Tamfang21:20, 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? --Rebent04:06, 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)
As evidenced by the now-less-than-recent series of "Mac vs. PC" ads, Justin Long, and by extension, all mac products are most likely too cool to be called PCs. I don't know what that means for this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.39.170 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
character counts
To help resolve the issues of major vs minor characters, I counted appearances of each character through #1425#1495#1505Wdfarmer#1515 #1535, 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.
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)
I've added the following counts for strips #1496 through #1505 to the above table, and resorted it numerically:
You know, the more I look at these numbers, the more I think the threshold for inclusion should be raised substantially, like to at least 100, if not 200. As the comic progresses, it is only natural that the number of appearances for each character will gradually increase. Or, we could get complicated and make it a percentage, such as 10% (which right now would equate to about 150 appearances). Something needs to be changed, else the article list is going to get too long. — Huntster (t@c)06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This does make sense to me; dropping those below 152 would not be a disaster. On another hand, it's also natural that as time goes on the canon gets more complex. I have in mind a formula that may be too math-nerdy for anyone else's taste: find the entropy (information theory) of the above table (extended to include one-shot characters), find N such that N characters appearing with equal frequency would have the same entropy, and display the top N characters. —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Another possible standard (harder to quantify): every continuing plot ought to involve at least one "major" character. Under such a standard I'd keep Steve and Penelope, because of the Steve & Ellen saga and the Penelope & Wil saga, each of which is independent of other characters. —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If I had time on my hands, I'd add a column to the table: "number of appearances without Faye or Marten" – and see how much that changes the ranking. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I'm not a mathematician, so I'd have to leave the entropy stuff to you. Regardless, I think some higher threshold for inclusion is needed. As for appearances without Faye or Marten, I suspect that the numbers might be larger than one would realise. — Huntster (t@c)08:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a distinct feeling that your definition of "easy way to do it" is dramatically different from mine! Fantastic list as always. I've added the ability to sort columns and fixed the display so that the null "without..." fields function properly. — Huntster (t@c)05:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I did. My database is a textfile that looks like this:
I wrote a little program (yay Python) to convert my log from strips by character to characters by strip, which will make it much easier to update all the columns. – Here's a trivia question from heck: Which two strips have eight named characters? Hint: both are "out of continuity". —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I couldn't even begin to answer that one. You know, perhaps you should become Jeph's official continuity checker? ;P — Huntster (t@c)10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps add a column for "strips since first appearence" so that we can see stuff like Marigold appearing in 59 out of the 213 strips since she was introduced. (Counting up to 1625) 96.239.54.90 (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Faye appears in the most strips. Excluding Faye strips, Marten appears most often. Excluding Faye/Marten strips, Hannelore appears most often. Excluding Faye/Marten/Hannelore, Dora. Carrying on in this pattern, we get: Marigold, Steve, Sven, Yelling Bird, Pintsize, Penelope, turkeys. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I've recently come across QC, and I was just about instantly addicted. I came into it in a later comic, and went back and am reading it from the beginning, and discovered Faye has a sister, Amanda (presumably Whitaker)--introduced in comic #164, she asks Faye for a place to crash after the fallout of their mother discovering she's switched her majors, is failing all her classes, and is a lesbian. ...I haven't read much farther into the comic yet, but should Amanda be included in the list of characters? erm.. "no" is a viable answer, since I see we're excluding cameos by waitresses and such, but since she's a named character and Faye's sister, I figured it's worth asking about. —ChromWolf(talk) 19:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking she did "recur", in that she appears in two unrelated episodes (164–175, 584–617); but that's only 18 appearances in all and the last was more than a thousand strips ago, so no. (User:Tamfang/QC cast) —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In QC #1995, Momo types a resume, stating that she (and Marigold) live at 14 Elm Grove Ln, Apt. 8, Northampton MA 01060. When punched into GoogleMaps, there (obvious) is no such street, however, there is a 14 Elm Court Rd in Northampton, MA. Any deeper meaning? Should this be incorporated on the page, for example in the character-section? Rikthoff (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
