Talk:Questionable Content/Archive 2

message: 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-Lingua 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, cut it down.  Not notable enough for a separate list page imho.  —Tamfang 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to the notability issue for the separate list. Bo-Lingua 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackboard Comment List 

message: THIS WEBCOMIC SUCKS BALLS!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.171.216 (talk • contribs).
: Perhaps you'd like to change the article to reflect that:  "Questionable Content is a slice-of-life comedy webcomic, which sucks balls ...."  —Tamfang 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  everyone's a critic 

message: The article states that Dora may be bisexual. However, it states that she has made out with a girl here: http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=404 I think we should change it to "Dora is bisexual". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.105.204 (talk • contribs).
Kissing someone of the same sex does not necessarily mean a person is bisexual.DuckieRotten 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Rmj12345 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. WookMuff 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Rmj12345 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doras Bisexuality 

message: I don't know, but this page seems a little better than a Start-class to me. ~ EdBoy[c] 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: From http://www.questionablecontent.net/interview.php
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."
Because it seems to be a common association for people to make. WookMuff 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIR vs Pintsize, the eternal struggle... 

message: You know, shouldn't we update the strip in the infobox so it's more representative of his current (artistic) style? Just a thought. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strip picture 

message: 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. Seraphimblade 12:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR/cleanup tagging 

message: Does the fact that the comic, per Alexa.com, has been averaging around 200 million hits a day average for the last 4 months mean anything?  One would think the traffic alone is a sign of notability, at least in my mind. Bo-Lingua 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not popularity. Seraphimblade 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. 68.13.21.225 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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-Lingua 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Seraphimblade 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 68.13.21.225 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Why is there no mention of Ellen in the list of characters at all? Dark Avatar 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has entered her in the list...at best she's minor. Bo-Lingua 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellen 

message: Did a quick search for "Questionable Content" in Google news to see if anything new had popped up. Only two popped up:
*Pussy Cat PC
*Cartoons propel creative process
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? GarryKosmos 05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can handle that. Thanks for helping in the ongoing fight for notability. Rmj12345 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QC in the news 

message: 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 396 (July 4, 2005) through 750 (November 10, 2006) cover fourteen 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.
I'm leaving it here under the "Sharing Material" Wiki talk page guidelines. Hope that's okay! Rmj12345 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving "Duration" section 

message: 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 396 (July 4, 2005) through 750 (November 10, 2006) cover fourteen 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.
I'm leaving it here under the "Sharing Material" Wiki talk page guidelines. Hope that's okay! Rmj12345 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  That stretch is even a bit longer: 431–750 is eleven consecutive days. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: See WP:SPOILER. tedder (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All gone. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ponderous online community?  I think not! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Bodhisattvaspath 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: besides, what do you mean no fat people?  faye's always complaining about her weight.  Itachi1452 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Slavically?  Like, you read it in Polish? —Tamfang 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  The word I was looking for was slavishly, by the way. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please don't escalate this on my account.  —Tamfang 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beatrice Chatham? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Didn't the author say she was eaten by an allosaur?  —Tamfang 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See the cast list, all the way at the bottom. Amphy 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sara the coffee shop girl 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Jeph Jacques 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  On primary sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Well-referenced and quite well written... but very few third party sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Extravagant use of copyrighted images 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  #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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of Secondary Characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last paragraph in Setting section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Characters and such 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PC history 

message: Cosette's surname Hurlbut was recently added and removed.  It's documented in #1541. —Tamfang (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosette's surname 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locations