Talk:Meg Griffin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All edit requests regarding the "Megatron" gag will be summarily removed without response. The answer is "NO!"

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meg Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan vs Megatron[edit]

Obviously, Family Guy plays pretty fast and loose with canon and doesn't shy away from breaking continuity for a gag. But in season 12 episode 4, there's an extended bit where Meg explains that her real name isn't Megan and was changed at the last minute to "Megatron" Griffin. Certainly the show has some sort of canon, and there are other references to her being named "Megan" but never before have they come right out and said what her full name is (and showed the birth certificate) so I think it at least warrants some mention. Perhaps as an "or" or in the infobox alone. Personally, I think the lede sentence should be rewritten as simply "Meg Griffin" with perhaps a parenthetical as to her full name. I know you could draw the parallels between this and the "Stan Thompson" gag (in one episode, Brian mentions that Meg's real father's name is Stan Thompson, prompting previous discussion on this page) but I think perhaps we should bring that up again. There's no mention of Stan Thompson on this page, even in a footnote. In the interest of bringing the fullest information to this encyclopedia, there should at least be a reference to these for users to relate back to. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron was a 1-off joke and we don't include those. Stan used to be mentioned but is also a 1-off joke so perhaps that's why it got removed. IMO, neither should be added as they are trivial and 1-off jokes with zero impact on the series. DP76764 (Talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. If we went with one-off gags/jokes, then Lois would be in prison; Peter's real name would be Justin; Peter would be severely brain damaged; Stewie would not be the real Stewie, but rather an evil clone, etc etc etc. We can't and should not include any of that. Nymf (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an episodic show, almost everything that happens is used for the purpose of one joke and rarely referenced again. Who gets to decide which jokes we include and which we don't? According to the show, her name isn't Megan but Megatron, but this article contradicts this based on what appears to be editorial discretion. Meanwhile, other such one-off jokes such as Louis' decision not to abort Meg are included as canon. Who's drawing the line? Scoundr3l (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no 1-off gags should be included. These articles are very difficult to keep "clean" of that material and just because some nonsense has slipped in doesn't mean we should include more. If you want an all inclusive article, try Wikia. DP76764 (Talk) 03:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've said as much, but you've not answered the question. What metric is being used to decide what's an excluded 1-off joke and what counts as included canon? The show is a legitimate source for the inclusion of this material, but aside from Original Research, I don't understand what you're using to decide what's excluded. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"1-off" is the metric. If it's 1-off, it shouldn't belong in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 00:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware that there's no such policy for exclusion, nor do most articles on fictional characters follow such an arbitrary rule. This article itself has about 30 references to one-off incidents, so it's not a very good metric if it even exists. But just to further highlight the issue, why does this article refer to her as Megan? What's the source for this? Scoundr3l (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policies that indicate exclusion of this stuff: WP:TRIVIA, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:IN-U and probably several others. Just because some junk is in here, doesn't mean we should include more. However, if you feel you have the argument to change the WP:CONSENSUS on this, feel free to RfC for more input. DP76764 (Talk) 21:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you highlight specific text you're referring to? I'm sure your time is valuable, but as far as I can tell none of these policies exclude the inclusion of a character's full name as expressed within the fiction of the show. It is neither trivial nor indiscriminate. It's no more in-universe than the rest of the article. Your assertion that this is non-canon seems to be OR and the idea it will never be referenced again is WP:SPECULATION (note: the fact that Peter is mentally retarded is referenced in a later episode). For that matter, there doesn't even seem to be a source to support that her full name as "Megan", as expressed in this article. Until it's clear exactly what you're using other than your own discretion, it's not clear what there's meant to be a consensus of. Certainly there's not a consensus to speculate on details contradictory to the source. This is not a democracy. Voting is not an alternative to discussion, especially where policy is involved. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And before you get deeper entrenched in your position, the admission that this information warrants inclusion doesn't necessary mean anything so dramatic as changing the title of the article to Megatron Griffin or any other obviously confusing changes. A couple of suggestions would be changing the lede sentence to read something like "Meg Griffin (referred to as Megan, though in one episode she reveals that her full name is actually Megatron[1])" or even a reference in the body to "In [episode name], Meg reveals that her full name was changed at the last minute to Megatron". Even if it proves to be non-canon, excluding the information entirely is altogether more confusing and less valuable as an encyclopedia than referencing that it happened. If it proves canon (I don't think the show makers care, honestly), then all the better than we included that information. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no specific text to cite that says what you're asking for; but if you absorb the spirit of the policies I mentioned you should come to a similar conclusion. And there is indeed already consensus on this: see the lack of it existing so far (consistently removed by multiple editors) and the note in the article body about changing it. Seriously, it's a 1-off gag that has zero impact on the character as a whole; mentioning it would be trivia. Next, I suppose, we'll have to mention that she changes her name to Ron (or whatever it was) in another episode too? We wouldn't want to be confusing and less valuable! DP76764 (Talk) 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can't have been removed unless it had been added, making that a net zero consensus. The note in the article body also does not indicate a consensus. I was going to say that this is the first time it's been discussed, but it appears that somebody deleted the previous discussions (in clear violation of talk page guidelines) and the previous discussion arrived at no consensus before the note was added. In fact, by a simple strawcount, more users appeared in favor of the change than against. In the interest of preventing WP:OWNERSHIP, the note in the talk page should be removed pending further discussion. We both agree against including trivia in the article and certainly there's a line to be drawn, but I think we also agree that a character's full name is not trivia (note that it's in bold in the opening sentence). The only thing we have to work towards is whether or not this can be called canon, whether or not FG has such a thing as canon, and if so what merits inclusion in the article. Certainly -some- of the events in the show warrant inclusion in the character article, and not all cutaways are treated as non-canon (the chicken fights began as a cutaway and evolved into a part of the show-proper; Joe's fight with the Grinch is referenced in a later episode). For the time being, I'm willing to table it at just removing "Megan" from the lede. I'm also going to restore the previous discussion as an archive for posterity sake. The impasse we face is that nobody can prove what is and isn't canon in Family Guy. While I agree we shouldn't include every silly thing that happens, this article should at least be accurate in what her name is and the honest answer is: we don't know. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Han Solo said "That's not how it works! That's not how any of it works!". Consensus is not a zero-sum proposition, especially not when you're talking about experienced editors removing the work of mostly "drive-by" editors. We do agree against trivia, just not what constitutes it. I maintain that most/all 1-off jokes, no matter their subject, are trivia and should not be included. If you want to be "accurate in what her name is", then I would have to insist on mentioning "Ron" too. See how silly that is? This show is rife with things like this and people are always tempted to add them here thinking that they are notable or meaningful. The vast majority of the time they aren't. This is just another case of a non-notable/meaningful 1-off gag. I say this because these articles are supposed to be written from a real world perspective; "in-universe" trivia like this has little to no real world meaning. Take a look at some of the Simpsons character article and see the balance between in-universe information and real world; those articles are the highest quality in this genre, imo.
In terms of Megan, I agree that your change is reasonable. Though as I was trying to recall where that came from, it might have been from early seasons. I seem to recall the school principal using that version of the name on a few occasions but could be wrong. DP76764 (Talk) 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly thrilled by the note change though. All you're really doing with that is inviting every random drive-by editor to come on to the talk page and complain about "why isn't this horribly significant piece of trivia in the article". A better note would be: "DO NOT change to Megatron: see talk page". DP76764 (Talk) 15:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we also disagree on how consensus works. You can't just insist something doesn't belong, throw up a note discouraging edits, and call that a consensus. That's borderline ownership behavior and "drive by" editors have just as much say in the state of this article as anyone else, provided their edits are constructive and aren't in any clear violation of policy. Since neither you or any other experienced editor can authoritatively state what is and isn't Family Guy canon, I find your "1-off gag" definition to be OR and unenforceable. Trivia covers the exclusion of most silly cut away gags (Peter once having a job as Matt Damon's neck is obviously not "real", but it's also irrelevant to his character article so this discussion doesn't necessary include such bits, and I think we can agree on their exclusion), but as we've established that the character's full name is non-trivial, it doesn't apply here. Family Guy is a silly show. Just because we think it's silly to change a character's name doesn't mean we have a right to deny that it happened. As for her changing her name to "Ron", that happens in an alternative future timeline. It's not vital to this article, but if someone wants to mention it in that context, I don't see the problem with that. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, random editors have the right to add content; however, I challenge you to consider whether most (or any) of them are actually aware of what the policies here mean and how that applies to the content they want to add. Also, I don't think you can fairly say that "we've established that the character's full name is non-trivial"; I don't recall agreeing to that particular assertion of yours. I stand by my position: 1-off gags do not belong in these articles; this isn't Wikia. If you feel your position is stronger, I invite you to RfC from other editors to get more input and a firmer consensus (I'd also recommend cross-posting at the FG work group page). Otherwise, I think we're in a good place where we are now. DP76764 (Talk) 18:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the experience of the randoms, I can only assume good faith. You and I can't even agree on a policy which excludes this change, so I don't think it's an issue of experience so much as perspective. As for the full name being non-trivial, I didn't mean to assume, but I honestly thought it was common sense. Full names are part of the manual of style, infobox, and all of the "Exemplary Articles" on fictional characters, such as Master Chief (Halo) and Bart Simpson. You're welcome to stand by your position, and I understand it in principle, but I think you'll find it indefensible in this case. Wikipedia editors don't determine canon, the source does. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True enough on the canon. But if you go by 1 instance of something happening as being canon, boy do you invite in a LOT of material. Please feel free to invite in other editors for opinions. DP76764 (Talk) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I agree in principle, but you also can't use 1-off to dismiss something either. Supposing any other show only mentioned a character's full name once, it'd still be canon. For everything else, we've got WP:TRIVIA. But I'm also content with the current state of the article and I think I've made all my points as you've made yours. If the discussion is picked up again, we can weigh in then. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of it at all? There's two huge sections on her family and social life but no mention of the time the show changed her name? Doesn't matter if you think it's canon (not your call), it's still important information to put on the encyclopedia page for the character. 2620:11C:E:3:2415:C784:4337:CB30 (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important information as this has no impact on the show. It was a one-off joke. This has already been discussed to the death.--5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you measuring impact on the show? It's about her name. Do all character articles have to prove impact in order to discuss a character's name? 2620:11C:E:3:2415:C784:4337:CB30 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about names then Peter would be called Justin. He's not because it's a one-off gag. Not mentioned again, therefore trivial. There are various policies that indicate inclusion of this stuff, WP:TRIVIA, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:IN-U and probably a whole host more. If you think you can change consensus of this, I would suggest that you request a comment--5 albert square (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're assuming that we agree Peter not being called Justin. It's established within the canon of the show that Justin is his birth name. If his article doesn't mention that, it's a failing of that article and should be addressed on that talk page. But we're discussing Meg. I'm not sure what you consider a consensus to be, but it's not telling other editors to stop making changes or saying "this has been discussed to death" as an alternative to actually discussing it. Nobody's forcing you to discuss it. But if you reread the linked page you'll see that requesting a comment is not an alternative to discussion. As for your only real point, that it's mentioned only once, I wonder if you hold the same standard for character middle names or ages or anything else that might only need mentioning once. Just because a show only mentions it once doesn't mean it shouldn't be included on their article. 02:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Scoundrl it has been explained to you many times as to why this is not covered in the article, you are refusing to accept what myself and other editors have said. I find it very strange that you have started to comment on this discussion again at the same time that the IP has appeared to back you up. You've already been told what to do if you don't agree.--5 albert square (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said back in September, I'll weigh in again if the discussion is picked up. It has been. Between then and now her name has been changed over 15 times by numerous independent editors in spite of a tag suggesting not to. When it was brought to discussion again it was promptly dismissed despite an obvious lack of consensus. I find that strange. As the show is in syndication and there's no end of reruns in sight, I don't think the problem is just going to go away because you really want it to. Maybe instead of dismissing the problem we should seek to find a compromise with the many IPs which appear to have backed me up, so far. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is BS, It's Megatron, no one in the family has ever referred to her as anything but Meg. But, OK, I'll add this in a lower section as "possibly." - Scottwindcrest (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not counted as it's a one-off gag.--5 albert square (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence adds to the page. Christopher Cross "Chris" Griffin and Stewart Gilligan Griffin are apparently accepted here (why?), even though they have barely been mentioned. There's no rule or logic with Family Guy, we all know that, and there's no rule or logic to what we add here on Wikipedia. An entire episode was dedicated to saying that Peter's birth name was Justin. Why are Stewie and Chris's pages accepted here when they had no more than either Megatron or Justin? - Scottwindcrest (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Racking my brain, and looking through old episodes, I'm pretty sure that Chris's middle name of (allegedly) "Cross" and Stewie's middle name of (allegedly) "Gilligan" were only mentioned once. If I missed something, twice, at best (though I'm not even sure of that). So why do those appear on Wikipedia but not Megatron? - Scottwindcrest (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 albert square, looking over the article history I don't think you're convincing anyone by repeating the same argument. There is no minimum number of times something needs to be repeated before it can be included in the article and there's no policy supporting exclusion based on it being thus-far "one-off". If you think it should be excluded based solely on your discretion, that's fine, let's discuss it. But you'll have to actually include the opinions of other editors in reaching that decision. You can't just wave a fake rule around and call that consensus. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just ignore the massive wall of text above and suggest that there's no consensus on this topic? But, yes, we should try to be consistent here too; I'd be supportive of removing "Cross" and "Gilligan" on the grounds of them being 1-off and trivial. DP76764 (Talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you think consensus means? Would you expect to see walls of text if everyone agreed with eachother? You're going to have to elaborate on that one. The only thing you and I previously agreed to is that the article shouldn't refer to her as "Megan". Scoundr3l (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo indicates we agreed on no "Megatron" too. Plus all the prior status quo. Just sayin. Still waiting for that RfC too! DP76764 (Talk) 03:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have quite a few policies mixed up, then. Consensus by status quo or silence is the weakest form of consensus and here you have me and other editors telling you that we disagree. Ergo, we do not agree. Ergo, there is no consensus. Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and review the edit history of this article. A consensus can only be determined if the status quo is unchallenged and it's challenged constantly. Since you're not actually citing any policies which prohibit the change, would you like to proceed to step 2: discussion? RfC isn't an alternative to explaining yourself. Just sayin. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my intention to perpetuate a policy discussion, so allow me to get a different ball rolling. If you're unwilling to discuss the content changes, we may have larger issues, but assuming you are I'm sure we can find something we agree on. For starters, although I've expressed that "one-off" is a non-policy issue (i.e. something's either verifiable or it's not) I do understand the principle of why you're opposed to one-off jokes and even agree with it. As to whether or not it's trivial, that's an opinion and one we probably don't agree on. However, I do think perhaps it's less an issue of trivia and more an issue of canon. Because I think we all agree that non-canon jokes are mostly trivial. I have no issue excluding non-canon jokes. But suppose in the unlikely scenario that we were able to establish beyond a doubt that her name is "Megatron". Seth McFarlane does a 2 page interview in the New York Times which is peer-reviewed by comedy experts. Would you be willing to allow that including a characters full name, necessary or not, doesn't do any harm to the article? Scoundr3l (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Because that would be a reliable source (something I'd wager I've asked for in the past) and would definitely not be trivial at that point. Now if only he'd do that interview. And please pardon me for not giving as much weight to random drive-by editors as you seem to; I tend to err on the side of established editors who are familiar with the intent of what the site is supposed to (and not supposed to be. DP76764 (Talk) 17:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea a cartoon name could be so contentious lol. I'm a Family Guy fan so that's why I wanted to edit this. But I'll withhold from any further discussion on this, because apparently a cartoon character's possible name is the most important thing on earth and Wikipedia would explode if "Megatron" was added anywhere in the article. - Scottwindcrest (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't chimed in, I've been away for awhile. So, as you know, the primary source is a reliable source for information about the characters of the show. There's no need to ask for a source because we already have it. See WP:USINGPRIMARY Also, your opinion of drive-by editors is irrelevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can use. One of those pesky 5 pillars which outline what this site is about. As your opinion doesn't outweigh their opinion, you're going to have to come up with policy-based reasons why this name can't be changed and not rely simply on attacks of character. Since it's status as trivia is not based on the information itself but only how well sourced it is, we now need you to elaborate on how you've reached the conclusion that the source material is unreliable or non-canon. Yes, the name change was done as part of a joke, but Family Guy is a fictional comedy show which is not above changing a character's name for a joke. As an article about a fictional comedy character, there's no reason this article can't relay this information to the readers. Defending the status of her "real" name is an inappropriate attempt to write this article as if it were describing a real person and not a fictional character in Family Guy. She's not real and the show changed her name for a joke. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single, indirect, mention in a single episode is triviality. If you think that's not trivial and we apply that logic to the [articles about the] rest of the show, then we're going to have massive amounts of 1-off items (all of Peter's jobs, all of Peter's ancestors, etc) in these articles. Also, keep in mind, that part of one of the WP:5P is WP:NOT; one of those pesky 5 pillars which outlines what the site is NOT about. And while this may be about a fictional character, it should be written from a real world (not an in-universe) perspective. Seriously though, you should WP:RFC (suggesting this again, for the umpteenth time) if you really think your argument holds water. Otherwise it's just us going back and forth. DP76764 (Talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think you miss the point of Family Guy. "We apply that logic to the rest of the show." - What? There is no logic to the show. That's its charm. "Otherwise it's just us going back and forth." - Many of us wiki editors are more than happy to provide that service and continually update. Once again, with respect, you're trying to apply logical rules to an illogical show. And by doing so every Family Guy page on Wikipedia becomes more and more inaccurate as episodes go by leaving pages like this trying to decide which cutaway applies and which cutaway doesn't under arbitrary rules of your OWN creation. - Scottwindcrest (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:CONSENSUS to change this, please do not add it in. As for logic, I was talking about the article, not the show (I've edited my statement to clarify it). As I've requested numerous times before, if you pro-Megatron people really think that this is more than trivia and that the community at large would agree with that, then WP:RFC already! DP76764 (Talk) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Dp76764, I know we're not Wikia here, but that's only good or bad from a point of view. Such fanbased wikis have brought us the premiere sites on the net for information (if you want Star Wars info, for the real fans at least, you go to Wookieepedia, not Wikipedia, regardless of who gets more hits). I'd respectfully ask you for a bit of flexibility which, if I may say, you are being irrational about. - Scottwindcrest (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any room for flexibility when it comes to irrelevant trivia, sorry. RFC and establish a new consensus if you think you can persuade people. DP76764 (Talk) 14:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the "chief editor" of a very lazily documented cartoon page. Let's hop off that high horse. Jacksm3 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes i came here because you should change it to megatron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.164.68 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't she also a fictional person of African-American descent?[edit]

  • Cough*NateGriffin*Cough*

Mark76 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1-off and trivial. Not notable. DP76764 (Talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No less one-off and trivial than her being Jewish. Why is she listed as German, though? I don't recall anything about that. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Is her mother's family of Germany descent perhaps? If not, it could be a result of junk creeping into the article. Feel free to remove it if you want! DP76764 (Talk) 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know they said her mother's mother is Jewish, though not sure her nationality. Pewterschmidt definitely sounds German, I just don't remember them saying so specifically. Still, I'm sure it was added for a reason. Not going to strip it based only on my spotty memory of the 300 or so episodes, lol. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Here[edit]

Go to this link to prove that Megatron is short for Meg: [redacted] User talk:MattWorks 10:34, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Please see the entire discussion above about about this. This is a 1-off gag and is irrelevant trivia, which we do not include. DP76764 (Talk) 15:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019[edit]

Add category, Category:Fictional victims of child abuse Rightoturn (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is not Megan.[edit]

This is a common mistake. Officially, her legal name is Megatron as is explained in "A Fistful of Meg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.14.77 (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion indicated that, since it's a one-off gag, it shouldn't be taken as fully authoritative. What other sources support the name? —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meg's real name[edit]

In the episode "A Fistful of Meg" it is revealed that Meg's real name is actually Megatron Griffin, not Megan. It got changed by Peter when Lois handed him the birth certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.202.131 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, we don't catalog every one-off gag. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But where's the evidence that it is "Megan"? She's only ever referred to as "Meg" on the show, afaik, so putting "Megan" at the beginning of the article is a mistake, and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a few episodes, such as "I Never Met the Dead Man", "Let's Go to the Hop", "Christmas Is Coming", "To Live and Die in Dixie", and "No Giggity, No Doubt". It doesn't happen that often, but still more than the name "Megatron". Quahog (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Consensus: Name is Megatron[edit]

We have definitive proof. The birth certificate reads "Megatron". There is no evidence that counterracts this. While Quagmire or Stewie may have called Meg "Megan", that was their mistake. Her name is Megatron. It's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahalboeg (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide reliable sources to back this claim up. Per the discussion above, the birth certificate sequence within an episode does not establish her name. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Oswald[edit]

In the episode "Meg's Wedding" that aired last night, Meg was called "Meg Harvey Oswald Griffin" by the priest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, a one-off joke won't warrant inclusion in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021[edit]

Meg Griffin is not Peter Griffins real daughter. Her real father is Stanley “Stan” Thompson. Lois made a drunken mistake in the early years of her and Peters marriage. Then when she found out she was pregnant, Stanley decided to not stick around. Peter and Lois then decided that they would not tell Meg any of this, although Chris, Brian and Stewie also know who Her real father was brought up in the episode "Screwed the Pooch” as well as others but while attempting to persuade the court that Brian should have access to his puppies, Peter observes that if he were half the dad that Brian is he would know certain facts about his children, including the fact that "Meg's real father is..." Brian answers, "Stan Thompson." The irony is that Meg does not hear this revelation as she is listening to music on headphones at the time.

Although, Brian does later mention in "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven" to Meg of how she resembles Peter. This either could be to refute the statement of Stan Thompson being Meg's real father, or that Brian may have been lying to talk Meg out of burning "non-christian" books. Nativeprincess527 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron[edit]

Once again, there seems to be some back and forth on this. Can we please try to reach some sort of consensus instead of edit warring? I am personally against referring to, or implying that "Megatron" is her actual name, as in the past we have not catalogued every one-off gag/joke. Otherwise, we'd need to include that she and Chris are legos and that Meg has her heart on her head, etc. etc. etc. Can we please remove the reference from the opening line until a consensus has been reached? Landfish7 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the "Harvey Oswald" thing apparently came about in an episode where she married. Was "Megatron" in there also? Otherwise, there's inconsistency in the naming. —C.Fred (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce proposes to Meg as "Meg Harvey Oswald Griffin" in the episode. Another one-off gag. Landfish7 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this. Without a new consensus being reached, and with it being strongly established in the past that we don't catalogue every one-off gag/joke as canon, I again ask that we remove the reference from the opening line and from the infobox until a consensus is formed agreeing to its inclusion. Landfish7 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both Megatron and Harvey Oswald are throw away gags that have been mentioned once and never again, therefore should not be included in my opinion. But I do think they should be removed until a consensus has been reached. Tommi1986 let's talk! 19:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else have any opinions on this? So far we've got at least two people saying remove it until a new consensus has been reached. Landfish7 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her legal name is Megan Griffin. cookie monster 755 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her legal name is never revealed beyond her birth certificate (Which reads Megatron). FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1-off joke that has never been mentioned again. Everywhere else she is legally and socially addressed as Megan Griffin. Landfish7 (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere else she is exclusivly addressed as Meg, not Megan (because Megan isnt her name) FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is frequently referred to as Megan, far more than she is ever referred to as Megatron. Landfish7 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A name on a birth certificate is a legal name. cookie monster 755 08:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's a fictional character. She doesn't a have a mf-ing legal name.
What is needed is out-of-universe evidence that this intended to be her full name, rather than going on an in-universe precedent like that. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if an annual contains this information then its canon? Cause I have an annual which says this. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is out of universe evidence, sadly cookie monster 755 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've said it in edit summaries, but I'm putting this here. I will revert on sight with no additional comments any further edit requests or new discussions regarding this. At this point, no such posts can be considered anything but obvious and idiotic trolling. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meg’s Birth Year[edit]

I’ve done plenty of research to estimate Meg was (technically) born between the years 1982-1983, considering the fact that Family Guy came out (was also set) in 1999. This was acknowledged in the episode Da Boom (Season 2 episode 3) in which the griffins are getting ready to celebrate New Year’s Day (Y2K). Meg is 16 at the beginning of show. CMJ2 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. And a sliding timescale. Not appropriate in any fashion. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CMJ2: Do you have any out of universe reliable sources to cite for that, or is all your evidence from episodes? —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Honestly... mostly from episodes I’ve seen with some research online, but i guess it’s more complicated when it comes to the floating timeline. CMJ2 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is basically just a fan theory, which wouldn't be appropriate to include. Landfish7 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And she's still at school when Obama visits it, and she's still at school when she meets President Trump, not in her mid 30s. It's a cartoon. And if we're being really smart, Da Boom was a dream. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lacey chabert reference[edit]

in the episode ‘business guy,’ peter threatens to fire lois, she says that he wouldn't, and peter responds, “two words, lacey chabert.” 107.220.0.253 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but - so what? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BPD[edit]

Should the category "Fictional people with borderline personality disorder" be added as, proved by the Family Guy Wiki, she meets the diagnostic criteria for BPD and it is a recurrent part of her character and personality. Thanks, User:ZuZuBanjo06

No, Fandom wikis are not reliable sources, and the entire idea of a cartoon character being diagnosed by a bunch of fans is non-notable junk. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024[edit]

Change Megan Griffin to Megatron Griffin, it was retconned in season 12 e4 2600:6C50:61F0:60:C103:F117:4D33:C0D0 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Judy Barbara[edit]

Should we put her in as being Meg's biological daughter? It's obvious that it was her egg that was used and then either Bruce or Jeffrey's sperm. We have Karen and Chip Griffin both as relatives. Arjoccolenty (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meg_Griffin&oldid=1218336158"