The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Comics: An Introduction by Harriet E.H. Earle ISBN 9781000204827 - discussed QC in a few places but no extracts are available on Google Books
Dennis Kogel Rethinking Webcomics: Webcomics as a Screen Based Medium - some matter from this paper is incorporated in but there is more discussion that is likely relevant
The role of culture in comics of the quotidian by Frank Bramlett
What's up with Webcomics? Visual and Technological Advances What's up with Webcomics? Visual and Technological Advances in Comics in Comics by Maria Walters
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
Questionable Content (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 9 August 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]