Talk:Meg Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sentence removed 2 Heritage 3 Voice 4 The Untold Story 5 Picture size 6 Meg's weight 7 Meg's height 8 Is Peter Meg's biological father? 8.1 Third opinion 9 Fan Reaction section... 10 Requested move 11 Romance 12 Overlong 13 The other Meg Griffin 14 Why does everyone hate meg? 15 Meg's age

[edit] Sentence removed

"In that sense, Meg is similar to Davan MacIntire from Something Positive: both are relatively unremarkable-looking people whom, for no logical reason, many seem to find hideous." I feel like this point is already established, connecting it back to a webcomic (which certainly fewer people read than watch Family Guy) seems unneccessary.68.98.189.245 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage

Her Heritage doesn't include English which is one of Lois' heritage. If Lois is from an English heritage why wouldn't Meg? Bryan the Magnificent 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice

Lacey Chabert did the voice for a few of the second season episodes. You can tell when the voice changes because it's just so markedly different. Mike H 08:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Untold Story

I removed a section about "revelations" regarding Meg in Family Guy Presents Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. I feel it's inappropriate to add information from the unreleased DVD; at the very worst, this seems to effectively condone internet piracy, and at the very best, confuses people. -DynSkeet (talk) 21:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that such information can be included, but considering that it is something that happens in a now-changed future it must be treated as such. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I think I'm just going to avoid editing (or even reading) Family Guyarticles until the Stewie movie comes out and I watch it. I've already read two huge spoilers and I don't want to read anymore. Cromulent Kwyjibo 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The information should probably be added back in. It has been hinted to in other episodes and just because the information is from a DVD that has not been released does not mean it should not be included. We would still include information from a Japanese DVD that had not been released in the US even if the editor who added it was in the US and had gained the knowledge from a pirated version. - 24.7.186.18 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE A QUESTION!!!!!!!! ANYONE WHO SEES THIS PLEASE RESPOND!!! I'M HAVING A DISPUTE WITH MY ROOMATES ABOUT MEG GRIFFIN. THEY SAY THAT SHE IS NOT PETER GRIFFIN'S DAUGHTER, I DISAGREE. IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE ON MEG GRIFFIN(FAMILY RELATIONS) IT MENTIONS A COMMENT BRIAN MADE REGARDING STAN THOMAS, HER "REAL FATHER", I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF MANY JOKES THAT ARE DISREGARDED THROUGHTOUT THE SERIES, BUT I WOULD LOVE SOME FEEDBACK IF ANYONE HAS ANY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.100.88 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 March 2006.

Here's some feedback: turn your capslock off. Don't bold and italicise entire paragraphs. This is a forum for discussing changes to and disputes with information in the article. It's not a fan message board for settling bets or arguments. If you don't find the info you're looking for, try doing a little research and then post your findings here. 12.22.250.4 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture size

The picture for this article is rather large; it takes up the entire page (not including the Wikipedia bar to the left) on 800x600 and makes the page look odd even att 1280x1024. I would think this something of a usability issue, especially since many users probably don't change XP's default resolution. I do believe the image in question to be of fine quality, and advocate keeping it, albeit smaller. I myself don't have Photoshop on hand, so would anyone else care to create a resized version? 12.64.60.207 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the thumbnail version that appears in the Family Guy Character box, you don't need an image editor to resize it. Just specify a smaller width in pixels in the line that names the image. The thumbnail is the larger original, just drawn smaller. Reducing the size of the original with an image editor won't necessarily change the size of the thumbnail if a width has been specified for the thumbnail. However the image as is is not unusually large; in fact it's about average. I've gone back in the history to before your posting and it seems to have always been its current size, 180 pixels, which is quite reasonable (and small). It does not take up the entire page at 800x600, nor does it look odd at 1280x1024. I don't understand why you think it does, unless your monitor is set for an extremely low resolution, like 320x240. 12.22.250.4 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meg's weight

190lbs? Surely this is absolute rubbish! (Just checking in case it genuinely comes from one of the newer episodes that haven't been screened in the UK yet...) Libatius 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't seen or heard this in any episode, the page earlier said 120 lbs, but it seems like someone changed that. They may be right, I have no idea. Let's just wait and see who says what.

I think that line should be removed as it hasn't been mentioned in any episode or interview that I'm aware of.Stu42 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Brittany 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really shocked when I saw the 190 pounds! She's a bit chubby but not obese like Chris and Peter. In addition, there is no reference to this in the show. So far, there's been very few references to her weight, but probably the most obvious one was when they were at the amusement park and the attendant guessed, "A lot." I think 120 is probably a reasonable estimate, but maybe should wait for a possible direct reference.

User:JEMASCOLA 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meg's height

At one point, it was listed as 5'5" and then went down to 5'1" eventually. Like many cartoon characters, Meg's height seems to vary from time to time. Sometimes she looks much shorter than Lois and Chris, while other times she looks closer in height. Any thoughts?

User:JEMASCOLA 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just speculation. I've come across at least one editor who played around with all the heights and weights because he thought he could make an educated guess...Libatius 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no sources cited, I removed the height for now. -SpuriousQ 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Peter Meg's biological father?

Section should be removed. Based on pure speculation, and only has jokes for evidence. -- Steel 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It can just be cut down to something like "A throwaway gag once suggested that Peter was not Meg's father, etc". 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that not even that is necessary. We can't list every single throwaway gag made about Meg, and this one is nothing unique or special to warrant inclusion. I've removed the entire section. -- Steel 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not pure speculation when the words actually came out of the character's mouths. Peter said "and Meg's real father's name is-" Brian said "Stan Thompson". This was to show the judge that Brian knows a lot more about the family than anyone. Nothing in the show is serious, you have to take the jokes as a reality, gag or no gag. Coolguy1368 18:15 29 June 2006

Perhaps speculation was the wrong word, but my other comment still applies. We can't list every throwaway gay in the series, and that one was no more special or significant than any other to warrant inclusion. -- Steel 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gag or no gag, it was said. Period. That's my point. It wasn't a flashback. In the fictionalized world and due to circumstantial evidence, Peter abuses Meg, physically and emotionally which can be explained if he has no emotional ties to her. They only bond as much as two complete strangers do. Peter not being her father explains all of that. And Peter said it, in court, under oath.Coolguy1368 18:32 29 June 2006

You're reading far too much into this. It's a cartoon that doesn't need to make perfect sense and doesn't need an explanation. -- Steel 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether Meg is Peter's father or not is a big thing to do with the way they behave and most important, their relationship and I think it can be speculated in the article, not a fact though. Remember, the article that was removed said "some fans have debated" which is seen everwhere in wikipedia as well. Coolguy1368 18:42 29 June 2006

It doesn't matter how widespread it is on Wikipedia, this is not the place for fan debate. -- Steel 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument that it was a throwaway gag is not good enough to not include it. My argument is valid, it was said. For my argument to be invalid, I would have to be proven otherwise. If there was a commentary saying that Meg is his daughter, fine. But until then, it stands true that Meg is not his daughter. It was said, joke or no joke, it was said.Coolguy1368 20:26 29 June 2006

I don't appreciate you readding that section while discussion is still in progress here, but that's by the by. To take another example, in one episode, Stewie becomes a weird octopus-like creature. That wasn't a flashback, yet in the next episode Stewie is back to normal. My point is that what is said or what happens in one episode doesn't mean that it's true. Like I said earlier, you are reading far to much into this. Family Guy, like The Simpsons and South Park, is a cartoon that doesn't need to make sense and doesn't need an explanation. By all means, include a line like "a throwaway gag once suggested that Peter is not Meg's biological father", but this doesn't warrant an entire section to itself. Why aren't there loads of theories about how Stewie became normal again after the octopus thing? -- Steel 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "which is understandable" is not a neutral point of view. And technically, just becaue she falls to the ground doesn't mean she's dead. I might be reading too much into this, but the point is that wether Meg is Peter's father or not IS a big deal, especially in the Family Guy universe..Coolguy1368 9:54 30 June 2006

There is only one throwaway joke in favour of this. Is it alright if I request a third opinion on this? -- Steel 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Coolguy1368 16:34 30 June 2006

[edit] Third opinion

I'm afraid there really isn't enough in this section to justify its independent existence. Perhaps put a throw away line, as suggested in the second line of the discussion, in the section preceding it, but one throw-away gag does not justify this amount of text - it also whiffs slightly of original research. --Scott Wilson 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Scott Wilson agrees 100% with Steel, especially when a third opinion is supposed to "disagree with both disputants." Whatever, I'll let it be. BUT, if and when Stan Thompson is brought up again in future episodes (plot or gag), I will put it back up. And yes, I have saved what I wrote previously.

It doesn't say that the third opinion must disagree with the disputants, it just states that the third opinion can, if necessary, disagree with both other parties. And if Stan Thompson comes up again, it would be more than a throwaway gag and there would be reason to incude a section on it. -- Steel 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we all just agree that the fact of the show is that it's a culmination of endless quips and puns and much of the show is supposed to be a work of fiction within itself.

I suppose you could say that I'm against inclusion of this throwaway line as it's completely immaterial. Were it a continuing theme or storyline or a plotpoint constructive of more than this one instance, I'd be for keeping it, but not in that it's literally mentioned only once ni the (as yet) whole 5 series and film history.

--User:lincalinca

[edit] Fan Reaction section...

Are there sources for these claims about Meg's character and the way she has been recieved? The use of weasel words seems pretty blatant in that spot; it looks like it could also be suspect to original research... I think the whole section either needs a substantial rewrite or needs to be removed completely. Thoughts? --SingCal 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I am a fan of Meg myself and often find others who share relatively similar opinons to mine about the fact that Meg should get revenge. I see these people mainly on Internet message boards. I have heard from them rumors circulating about Meg getting revenge, and although there has to be a source of it somewhere, I have yet to find who stated that. I definitely don't think that this section should be removed, as it is very vital to Meg's character. Some love her (myself included), while others hate her, so a fan reaction section should be kept to show the controversial view on Meg. Despite that, we should put in some more concrete sources for research of these findings. For instance, one part of the article said that several Family Guy writers also seem tired of the Meg bashing. When I read that, I thought, "Wow, that's great! It's too bad there's no original source for that." Maybe we'll find them eventually. --JEMASCOLA 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romance

When Meg imagines Tom Tucker swin across a pool, walk up to her while saying, "Meg, you know how cute I always thought you were", and removing his shirt; I believe this was a nod to Phoebe Cates famous red bikini pool scene in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, was it not? If I am correct, that could be good to add. Raerah 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlong

This article is ridiculously long, and needs to be cut. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Family Guy fansite.--C-squared 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please read Wikipedia:Article size. These guidelines indicate that articles should be a maximum of 32 KB; the Meg Griffin article currently weighs in at a whopping 42 KB. And I mean, come on, folks. It's an article on Meg Griffin. --C-squared 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I overwhelmingly agree. Do we really need a separate section devoted to Meg's relationship with each member of her family? It seems like this epic-length "encyclopedia article" is the thesis of some Meg fanatic who over-analyzes every throw-away gag and takes the show way too seriously. Meg's article is about twice as long as Peter Griffin's, and Peter is the star of the show. 75.46.27.159 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added the {{Content}} template to the top of the article. I am excising, in their entirety, both the Relationship with other family members and Romantic involvements sections. There is no encyclopedic justification for this level of pedantry; if you must have this information somewhere, please place it on a fansite like the Family Guy Wiki. Also, I plan to severely cut the Personality and Trivia sections for the same reason. --C-squared 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate just leave it. If people want to give up their free time to put a lot of info in these articles for the benefit of others, just let them. It's an encyclopaedia, as you said and the info shouldn't just be sourced from throw-away gags, but seriously this is the Internet and there's always someone interested in this info so just leave it there for them. It's not as though extra information is hurting you, is it? I grant you the article is/was 10 KB over the guidlines set. Come on though 10KB? In today's world that's not really a lot to get worked up about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spec ops commando (talk • contribs).

Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Also, please familiarize yourself with both the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yes, this is the Internet, and no, there is no such thing as a perfect Wikipedia article. But as you implied, the Internet is a big place—why not place all this fancruft on a fansite, instead of hindering Wikipedia from reaching its encyclopedic ideal? We are all operating on good faith here. Right now, beyond just the length alone, this article is an incoherent mess. I'm just trying to make it better. --C-squared 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you trim the sections you find overly long rather than deleting them wholesale. The relationships are an important part of the show and the character and some mention of them is appropriate. CovenantD 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with Covenant; just trim the sections that you find have unimportant information, not just delete them completely as this sort of stuff is important to the show and it's fans. BTW I thought I did sign before, I guess I forgot.Spec ops commando 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need an entire section devoted to Meg's relationship with her family members. Folks, not even the other members of the Griffin family have a section like that, especially in that kind of pedantic detail. Please refer to Wikipedia:Featured articles#Literature and Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media for a model of what a fictional character entry should look like. And again, if it's "important to the show and its fans", then put it on a fansite. This is an encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --C-squared 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your condesending tone is not appreciated, nor is your assumption that other editors are not familiar with policies and guidelines. CovenantD 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Still, there's no precedence either in featured articles or even other Family Guy articles for these sections. (The other Family Guy character articles need some trimming of their own, but that's neither here nor there.) --C-squared 21:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

C-squared if theres no precedent then why don't we make one. IF everything always atyed the same there would never be any change (duh)Spec ops commando 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because frankly, that kind of information is frivolous, pedantic, and not notable—particularly in the way it was presented here. Also, please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Examples. If that information belongs anywhere, it should be on a fansite, not here. And what was that about condescending tones that ConvenantD mentioned? --C-squared 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The other Meg Griffin

There really ought to be an article about the veteran New York DJ Meg Griffin, with some kind of disambig at the top of this one. If such an article exists already, I can't find it. 4.237.207.116 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does everyone hate meg?

i dont get it! Chris never gets laughed at!!!

Meg is treated very badly in the show because in the first two seasons of the series, her personality wasn't very developed. And because of that, fans saw Meg as the most boring character of the series. The writers, in turn, responded to that, by making all the other characters (with the possible exception of Neil Goldman) tease her for her unpopularity. The characters view her with an exaggerated version of how the fans viewed her, and it seems completely unprovoked when watching the show. I also see your point with Chris; he's much more awkward than Meg. I do feel that Meg is treated very unfairly and she's actually my second favorite character (Brian being the first).

Poor Meg! I like her.... 82.52.137.25 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meg's age

In "The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire", Brian said Meg is 17. I know he was drunk when he said it, but Meg didn't correct him, which would that she really is 17. Plus Meg was established as a high school junior in Peter's Got Woods, meaning that her age is either 16 or 17, right?

she might have been freacked out and didnt know what to saysailor cuteness-ready for love 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)