Talk:Questionable Content/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Reason for move

(I got cut off in my edit summary): "NOT pre-emptively disambiguating article titles is one of the main rules of Wikipedia. Until someone decides to write an article on "Questionable content" the thing (previous mover's rationale was "misleading" - what the heck, exactly, do you think belongs in an article on "Questionable content"?), the title stays." Thatcrazycommie 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Northhampton

Since the sign in the library actually reads "Smith College",[1] I'm not sure about this article's statement that it's a 'pun on' Smith. Marten and the librarian's tee read Smif, but that could be an internal pun in light of the fact that the only official sign is correct. In my view, it is Smith College, and has been confirmed as being set in Northhampton. Although a brief search of the town revealed no Coffee of Doom. Very dissapointing.

Showing the town square in the most recent comic makes it pretty clear to me that we're in the real Northampton--or at least as close as we can get to it when we've got talking robots. So I made the edit. Objections? MRig 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a bit concerned about OR. Do we have any third-party confirmation that this is Northampton? I like your version though. Rmj12345 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the character info section of the site for the webcomic lists the college as "Smif", so I think it would be appropriate to list it as "Smif" and make a note that it may be related to the actual Smith College.

"First Kiss"

This is only sort of accurate. It was the first kiss actually shown, but Steve/Ellen and Nat/Amir have all done plenty of kissing. I'm going to change it to "first kiss actually shown." Thatcrazycommie 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically not even that! [2] —Tamfang 07:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Faye's toast fire

Did the fire that burned down Faye's apartment building actually start from her trying to make French toast in the toaster? I thought it was just toast. In this strip she just says "Well let's just say I'm not very good at making toast." Is the French toast reference in another strip?

That page has been revised after its initial publication. It originally read "French toast" rather than "toast".
Bo Lindbergh 15:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
Then why not change it to toast here since it has been changed to toast in the comic? --Meredith 06:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Because it needs more cleanup than that and I'm lazy. The toast incident doesn't need to be mentioned both in the intro paragraph and in Faye's entry in the cast section, for instance. Bo Lindbergh 14:05, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)


Criticism

Any particular reason for removing this? The article is glowingly positive enough (to the point where there was a serious discussion on whether to delete it for purely being an ad for the comic); the link isn't the most flattering but I think some balance is appropriate. Caradhras 17:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason it was removed is because it is an external link to a review. Unless we want to link EVERY review of QC available online, I do not believe it is fair (or relevant) to link one that happens to be negative. Furthermore, the review is full of factual errors and is neither typical nor representative of the criticism that the comic has recieved. The QC Wikipedia article isn't what I would call "positive" so much as "objective". Nowhere do I see any attempt to judge the overall quality of the work- it's simply listing information about the comic.

Hey, it's OK, no need to accuse me of article-spamming. I like the comic too, I'm just trying to make the article sound more neutral and less like someone is telling their best friend about the awesome webcomic they just found. Caradhras 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is going to be a criticism section it should have more than just "this comic goes over our critics heads" IMO Claphands 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, last time I was here the criticism section was just a few comments on the fact that the indie-rock jokes Jeph uses from time to time are very rarely understood by people outside of the "scene".

Heh. As with Nothing Nice To Say, for all I know most of the bands mentioned are imaginary, but I think I get most of the jokes anyway on an abstract level. —Tamfang 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeph's attitude towards Wikipedia

I quote from the "blog-like entry" "PPS: The dudes over at Wikipedia are seriously uptight. Smoke some weed guys and chill out."

Why this? Sentientmeat 06:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually came here to check out the QC WP page because of that link. I think, if you look around, it's not too hard to see that WP editors sometimes take themselves too seriously (see also: Wikipediholic, Wikiholiday), and it's (in my observation) very much Jeph's style to point out that sort of thing. The discussion above about toast vs. French toast might seem pretty laid-back to long-time WP editors, but from an outsider's perspective it appears to be a lot of quibbling over a ridiculously trivial bit of wording.
My guess is that the comment wasn't meant as anything other than a mild poke, and I wouldn't worry about taking it too seriously. Bcordes 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Some say that it is because Wikipedia doesn't reconise the term "Webcest"
I'm almost positive that the comment was in response to the "Webcest" thing.--burnt in effigy 20:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Faye's Dead Dad

Surprising that there's no mention of Faye's suicide revelation and the webcomic meme that sprouted from it, such as in a recent Something Positive wherein Faye happened to be there to see HP Lovecraft end it all. 204.69.40.7 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Hannelore?

Would anyone object if I moved her into main characters? Because she doesn't seem to be a one-arc character like Marten's mother, or a one gag character like certain others in the Secondary Characters section, and if my calculations are correct has appeared more than Ellen or Steve in total, both of whom are in main characters.

Hannelore seems more central because they're in the same building, I think. So you go ahead and move her. Shen 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo currently writes...?

Didn't he quit that gig under circumstances that would embarass a mere mortal? I couldn't find the strip. dsws 08:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? Shen 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He got a new writing gig.

launch date

I have in my notes[3] that QC may or may not have been launched on 03.Aug.03. I don't remember how I got that date; maybe I extrapolated back from the first dated strip (#16, Sep.7). Anybody got the straight dope? —Tamfang 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it launched on 01.Aug.03. IIRC Jeph has said this in interviews.

Formatting

It seems like the first section is a little long. Most Wiki articles are much shorter. Maybe we can move most of the stuff in that section into actual categories (History, etc). --Bakkster Man 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"very much a dank depressed goth girl"- can you use dank in a metaphorical sense that way or did you mean 'dark' :p

Not sure where else to put this, and not exactly clear on how to start another section. I just reformatted the Synopsis section and renamed it "Overview." I felt the Synopsis wasn't exactly a synopsis and more unrelated ramblings about QC. I kept what was originally written about QC's setting, futuristic technology, and accompanying blogs, then added my own sections detailing the guest strips and the Thanksgiving strips. I know the To-Do list says to cut down on external links, but I can't see any way to clean up this article without linking to the source material. What say you fine folks?

Looks good. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk with four tildes (~). I'm going to add a new section for this cleanup down at the bottom - let's move our talk down there for now. Rmj12345 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

QC time

Who went through the archives and counted up the days? Since I also have no life, I've made notes of the strip#s at which day-transitions appear to happen, going mostly by when the characters change shirts. I came up with: 9, 22, 28, 42, 49?, 56?, 57?, 62?, 68, 81, 100, 119, 139, 164, 186, 214, 237, 270, 310, 351, 384, 396, 418, 431, 464, 510, 535, 570, 581. Anyone have a conflicting list? —Tamfang 07:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

About Ctrl build's recent edit to "Duration" — on review of the archive I'm leaning strongly to agreement that there's no gap before #396, and I'd rather see not see the chronology set out twice with one difference. On another(?) hand, to say that 351-395 are continuous and that 396-present are continuous is not to say that 395-396 are not continuous; the gap may be zero days. —Tamfang 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and try to clean up the duration tomorrow, and confirm that the time spanning strips and arcs is correct. The one frustrating part is that I met Jeph Jacques at my college's sci-fi/fantasy convention and he said at a panel that time elapsed in QC has been more than three months but less than a year. There's no way to quote him. </cry>

Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I got through 400 strips today (largely because I have no life), and confirmed what the previous author wrote about the consecutive days from strip 57 through 403 or so. I added the consecutive and individual days passed from strips 1-56 and cleaned up the analysis of QC duration the previous author wrote. I am not finished yet, but will resume tomorrow when I have the fortitude to look at 400 more QC strips. ;-) Someone please let me know if any of the edits I made today cross into the realm of individual research.

Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so before I go any further with this, I want to be sure that all you fine people who've been consistently editing this article agree that the work I've done of tearing through strips and documenting the distinct days is not OR. If it is, then please let me know so I don't dump hours of my time into doing something that will be frowned upon and/or deleted. Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About that criticism section

I have removed it and it must stay out of the article until it's compliant with WP:LIVING and WP:RS. This is policy directly from Jimbo himself, so there's not much to discuss. It's all gotta be sourced, and the sources must be notable, no exceptions. Sorry. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me how WP:LIVING is more relevant to that passage than to any other random paragraph. —Tamfang 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
For one thing, it wasn't sourced. Pretty much any critique needs to have that or it looks like original research. For another, some of it was phrased as a criticism of the author himself rather than the comic. As soon as you do that, WP:LIVING kicks in. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Winslow

Is Winslow an AnthroiMac? In the article, he's referred to as an AnthroiMac and an AnthroMac. However, he doesn't resemble an iMac computer. I think I'll go ahead and change it to Anthro iPod, seeing as he is named as an iPod on QC's Cast page. -xerai 17:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Cast page now says: "Hannelore's Apple AnthroPC model- basically an overgrown, sentient iPod." From this I don't think "Anthro-iPod" is justified. —Tamfang 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

Jeph's art style has changed somewhat since the comic that's the current sample picture. Could someone please talk to Jeph about a new picture from the 600's era? I've never talked to him, so I don't think it would work if I asked. --70.20.71.214 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) If someone wants to grab a more recent comic off the site, that is fine with me as long as it's properly attributed, etc. I am especially fond of the fight scene between Marten and the Vespa chick! --jeph