Talk:Questionable Content

message: I made a list by this process:
* Write down the character who appears in the greatest number of strips (as of #2525; excluding guest strips).
* Remove from consideration all strips with that character.
* Repeat.
The result: Marten (1338), Faye (567), Marigold (137), Dora (105), Hannelore (50), Yelling Bird (40), Steve (30), Sven (27), Pintsize/Dale/May (20 each), Penelope (14), turkeys (9), Emily (8), Ellen/Natasha/Claire (4 each), Tai (3). —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that inappropriately skews the results in favour of some newer characters. I think the article list should simply be the top 10 by number of appearances, with the possibility of consensus to include or exclude specific characters if needed (for example, I'm not sure that Steve needs to be included, but I definitely think that Dale and May should not be included). — Huntster (t @ c) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's not a terribly accurate method.  It also skews the numbers towards characters who do not appear with other characters.  It's interesting numbers, but it's statistically irrelevant. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not accurate or relevant for what purpose? That list may not measure what interests you most, but it measures something that interests me: the degree to which a character stands out of the shadows of other characters.  Take Tai for example: each of her first eighty (80) appearances, over a span of more than three years, were with Marten, and her second strip without Marten was 35 weeks after her first.  This says to me that Tai was a secondary character in Marten's story (and now Dora's).  —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, "not accurate" is bad wording because it is accurate for the method, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of this article because the calculation of "descending rank of appearances independent of characters ranked higher" is irrelevant to anything other than random statistics.  As far as relevance to the article, you might as well have sampled the color pallet and sorted the appearances based on the descending occurrence in regards to RGBC pixels.  "Most people have pants, if they don't have pants most have skirts, if they don't have skirts then most have police chasing them."  I find it interesting, personally, but at best this particular method is overly specialized and therefor irrelevant to common usage.  Anywho, I was just stating that to clarify.  Kudos on the work.Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Doing it again: 1594 Marten, 750 Faye, 206 Hannelore, 133 Marigold, 119 Dora, 57 May, 56 Clinton, 53 Yelling Bird, 34 Steve, 30 Brun, 28 Pintsize, 27 Sven, 19 Claire, 15 Momo, 14 Penelope, 13 turkeys, 11 Veronica, 9 Bubbles. —Tamfang (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

text: It now occurs to me that this measurement is analogous to topographic prominence. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

text: This year's count: 1628 Faye & Marten tie; 234 Hannelore; 134 Marigold; 120 Dora; 77 Brun; 67 May; 53 Yellingbird; 41 Emily & Claire tie; 35 Steve; 27 Sven & Pintsize tie; 17 Bubbles; 14 Penelope; 13 turkeys; 12 Veronica; 10 Bembo; 9 Momo; 8 Renee & Elliot tie; 6 Clinton. —Tamfang (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Five years later: 1889 Faye; 974 Marten; 338 Hannelore; 249 Clinton; 212 May; 157 Roko; 155 Dora; 145 Marigold; 107 Brun; 62 Claire; 53 Yelling Bird; 38 Yay (Spookybot); 36 Steve; 33 Pintsize; 29 Renee; 27 Bubbles & Sven tie. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Tamfang, you know I love the tables and statistics you put together--they are always insightful and interesting--but I just don't see why these relational figures should have relevance to who appears in the article. I still think that a basic appearance count is what matters most. Heck, I'd suggest everyone except Marten, Dora and Faye (and maybe Pintsize) should be considered secondary...restricting to these three would tremendously simplify the list! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Hannelore has now appeared in more than twice as many strips as Pintsize. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  characters ranked by independence 

message: Here's another possibly interesting list: ranking characters by independence from any single other character.
character   	most frequent co-player
Yelling Bird	Sweettits (16/40)
Marigold    	Hannelore (103/228)
Marten      	Faye (672/1338)
Cosette     	Steve (20/39)
Faye        	Marten (672/1238)
Dale        	May (25/46)
Hannelore   	Marten (303/539)
Clinton     	Hannelore (16/28)
Natasha     	Amir (18/30)
Sven        	Faye (97/159)
Momo        	Marigold (72/118)
Wil         	Penelope (27/42)
Winslow     	tie: Pintsize, Hannelore (39/60)
Samantha    	Dora (23/35)
Ellen       	Marten (41/62)
Dora        	Faye (620/907)
Emily       	Marten (35/50)
Angus       	Faye (114/160)
Penelope    	Dora (93/128)
Elliot      	Marten (19/25)
Pintsize    	Marten (221/280)
Padma       	Marten (39/49)
Raven       	Dora (123/153)
Steve       	Marten (153/187)
Tai         	Marten (158/193)
Claire      	Marten (81/93)
Amir        	Marten (28/30)
Veronica    	Marten (60/64)
May         	Dale (25/25)
—Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamfang, you know I love the tables and statistics you put together--they are always insightful and interesting--but I just don't see why these relational figures should have relevance to who appears in the article. I still think that a basic appearance count is what matters most. Heck, I'd suggest everyone except Marten, Dora and Faye (and maybe Pintsize) should be considered secondary...restricting to these three would tremendously simplify the list! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Hannelore has now appeared in more than twice as many strips as Pintsize. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: yet another variation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Questionable Content. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411060255/http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2005/01/25/ArtsLiving/Pioneer.Valley.Comic.Artist.Uses.The.Web.To.Reach.Readers-1557946.shtml to http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2005/01/25/ArtsLiving/Pioneer.Valley.Comic.Artist.Uses.The.Web.To.Reach.Readers-1557946.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18096585&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=624602&rfi=8
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't fully understand which secondary sources are accepted and which are not but if it is acceptable, then material from the fan-administered wiki at Wikia could be used to replace primary sources in the Questionable Content page.
50.35.65.62 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan wikis, and wikis in general, are only very rarely considered reliable sources (WP:RS). Wikis are user generated content (WP:UGC), which don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy expected of reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a fan-run wiki a usable secondary source? 

message: Dale is one of the ten characters listed, but has appeared in fewer strips than Clinton, May, Roko, Momo, Elliot, Steve, Sven, Brun, or Angus. (Remember Angus??) —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the recurring question of major characters 

message: :
Is that still true?  I should look up the first and last strips in which she was working there. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From before #75 (first appearance of the shop) until Dora fired her in #2879.  So yes, still a slight majority, but in a couple of years we need to change that line! —Tamfang (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CV of dooom