Talk:Regina George

Page move

Should this article be moved to the base name, "Regina George" and the sprinter be moved to something like "Regina George (sprinter)". This character is significantly more well known in pop culture than the sprinter (when googled literally nothing about the sprinter). Just wondering xx. Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ 2601:6C2:200:2930:EF0F:8447:D74B:E9CA (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus to move at the moment. To be reevaluated after dab creation. – robertsky (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Regina George (Mean Girls) → Regina George
• Regina George → Regina George (sprinter)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to long-term significance. Regina George the character has been an enduring archetype for 20 years and counting, having been the subject of continued academic and media analysis since she first appeared in 2004. In contrast, the athlete has not done anything notable since 2016. feminist🩸 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: the 2nd proposal, Regina George → Regina George (sprinter), has been granted and removed from this request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Regina George (sprinter) would be preferred, per WP:NCSP#Athletics (track and field). 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have updated my nomination to reflect that. (For editors viewing this discussion later on, I originally proposed Regina George (athlete).) feminist🩸 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support 2nd move per nom — but Neutral/Weak Oppose 1st move. Since primary topic swaps are often messy, I'd recommend having a disambiguation page at the basename as the safest bet for now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I think there's a compelling case here, the fictional character is an archetype that made her notorious years after the original movie was released so she qualifies as the primary topic. Killuminator (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, Support 2nd - disambiguate both for a time, ensure links are clean and incoming traffic settles, then we can revisit in the future. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment — Yup, totally agreed (like, you phrased it way better than I could)! Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support both per nom. Underclass King (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, Support 2nd and create a dabpage at basename. If a fictional character is not at the recognition level of Harry Potter then they should almost never take precedence over a real person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Consensus has been formed on the second move. Need consensus on first move, whether to leave as is and make a dab page, or move as proposed. Bensci54 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support the other has 26,897 views compared with only 1,089[] for this one. If anything the other is primary but a DAB would be fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I've moved the sprinter. I suppose the release last month of Mean Girls (2024 film) has something to do with influencing her "long-term significance". ;) wbm1058 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  A longer-term view of pageviews paints a different picture. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  The character only became an article on 1 November 2023, so page views before that are not representative. Note that I mentioned nothing about page views in my nomination. feminist🩸 (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose first DAB is better solution. Besides swapping article history being laborious (not as bad as it was, but still) there is the fact that I, personally, would always search for the film title as well as the character name when searching for them, even if the name is unique. The film is rather part of the identity. So on that practical level, if others search like me, keeping "Mean Girls" in the title of the article about the character may get it more hits, based on searchability.
  Then there's the philosophical level, as mentioned above, that it's a fictional character. With in-universe wikis like at fandom, having a non-disambiguated title is fine, but it does just seem wrong here on Wikipedia; and I worry that having an article title that doesn't make the fictionality clear could encourage editing that treats the article as in-universe rather than (generally) discussing real world response. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, Support 2nd per Necrothesp.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and not messy. There are no remaining article links to Regina George (contra Netholic). This move would not even require a history swap (contra Kingsif), just for a pagemover to check the "delete redirect" box. And a rule of preference for real people overly much more widely-known fictional characters has little relation to title policy (contra Necrothesp). SilverLocust 💬 07:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Consensus at RM would say otherwise. Regina George is not such a well-known character that she trumps real people. I would guess that most people have never even heard of the character. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Regina George (Mean Girls)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jolielover (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this. I am looking forward to it :) Expect comments by Monday evening (hopefully earlier) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay, my medication has been making me very tired and I spent most of the day sleeping! This is a really good article and you have done so well in improving it, you should be so proud! It is very well written and sourced. I can't see any major issues earwig does not show any copyright violations. I have done a few minor edits, and here are my suggestions below - they aren't huge issues, just some suggestions for clarity and expansion:

Fictional character biography: 1.) "told to avoid her by outcasts" - I think changing outcasts to "social outcasts" or something similar may be a good idea

• Done

2.) "Regina is seen to be the subject of obsession by her classmates" - could you please briefly expand upon this (e.g. are they obsessed with her because they idiolise her etc?)

• Done (idolization)

3.) The main issue that stood out is that it is not clear if the fictional character biography extends to the 2004 film or all of the Mean Girls films/musicals - I know it is the plot of the 2004 film as I have seen it, but it may not be clear to others.

• Done (added clarity it is the 2004 film)

Creation and characterization:

1.) I think this section should go first as the casting and characterisation of a character usually happen before they appear (as the casting and writing takes place before filming and release)

• Done

2.) "Director Mark Waters was impressed with Rachel McAdams' audition for the role of Regina, noting that she seemed to intimidate co-star Lindsay Lohan and "dominated" the room." - This needs a ref at the end of the sentence as it has a quote

• Done

Reception:

1.) Maria Robinson-Cseke - Can you specify who she is? Is she a writer, a sociologist, a critic etc?

• Done

2.) "Cady's conflict was revealed" - What does "revealed" mean in this regard? Can you maybe please change the wording?

• Done (reworded)

3.) "At Regina's Halloween party, Cady dresses as a monster, making guests physically recoil and keep distance, symbolizing her transformation into Regina" - Could you please clarify whether this is a critic's opinion or if this is more widely supported by many people?

• Critics' opinion - should I remove this?

4.) Can you please clarify who Michaela Meyer, Linda Waldron and Danielle Stern are?

• see above

5.) Some more opinions in the reception section/expansion would benefit the article, particularly from critics who like/dislike the character.

Other:

1.) The lead is quite short - it is not a criticism, but could it be expanded?

• I have done it, let me know if I should expand more

2.) "particularly in comparison with Donald Trump" in the lead makes it seem like Regina has been compared to Trump, so I think this could use some

• Yes, reworded

3.) This article could do with some free pictures to fulfill GA criteria - maybe a picture of McAdams or one of the other portrayers, or one of the clips in the "Political influence" section?

• Done

4.) The portrayal section should be above reception - I think it should be underneath "Creation and characterization"

• Done

5.) I think the article could benefit with some expansion regarding the differences of Regina's character across the different movies/plays etc

• Done

6.) The infobox image is very big - could this be made smaller or trimmed perhaps?

• Done

Once these have been addressed I will do a source spotcheck and hopefully pass the article! Please let me know if you need any help at all or have any questions :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thanks for the review! I have hopefully addressed your comments. :) jolielover♥talk 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for your changes and additions – they look great! From reading the changes I have the following suggestions: 1.) Could you note that Seyfield was chosen for another role instead?

2.) Can you clarify why McAdams listened to Courtney Love and watched Baldwin's character?

3.) Perhaps a picture of Renee Rapp could be in the reception section?

4.) Are there any sources/information that explain how the plays are different from the movie(s)?

5.) I would suggest changing the last bit in the lead to "particularly in reference to American politician Donald Trump" for clarity.

6.) Can you say who from the Los Angeles Times said the thing in the reception?

7.) For the "Works cited" section, can you please link the websites? I have done some for you :)

When I get home I will do a source check and hopefully pass the article. Well done!

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Spotchecked sources #1, #22, #25, #39 and #48. When the points above are addressed/fixed I will pass this article :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Done all of this, except 4 - I couldn't really find many reliable sources going in depth into the differences in George in the OG film and the play. For what it's worth, the 2024 film is based on the play, so has the same plot. jolielover♥talk 08:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This is amazing! I am passing it :) please nominate it for DYK if you'd like! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite being a villain, Regina George is regarded as a cultural icon?

• Source: Holback, Daniel (2023). "Regina George in 'Mean Girls': An In-Depth Psychological Analysis". SSRN Electronic Journal: 3. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4630022. ISSN 1556-5068.

• • ALT1: ... that several people have compared politician Donald Trump to high schooler Regina George? Source: https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/17/politics/donald-trump-mean-girls-white-house https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/clinton-bully-ad/index.html https://www.fastcompany.com/90439159/president-trumps-catty-european-trip-turned-world-leaders-into-mean-girls
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Roberts-Smith

Improved to Good Article status by Jolielover (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

jolielover♥talk 13:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC).

• Just promoted to GA. But neither hook seems appropriate. For the first one, the article only describes her as a cultural icon, and does not say that being a villain was an obstacle for that (and it shouldn't be anyway, Darth Vader and Thanos are villains, too). In any case, "subject has been described as X" is weak hook material. For ALT1, I don't see why Trump would be relevant here: memes are wildcards that can be used against any target when some given circumstances take place. And again, "they used a meme against someone" is weak hook material unless the article was about the meme, which this one is not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the criticism against ALT1, let me rephrase it to be more interesting:
• ALT3: ... that fictional high schooler Regina George appeared in an American presidential advertisement?

source: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/clinton-bully-ad/index.html

• ALT4: ... that Regina George was voted the "meanest high school film character of all time"?

source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/mean-girls-regina-george-meanest-character-research-a8957521.html

Let me know what you think @Cambalachero: jolielover♥talk 17:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• • ALT4 is fine Cambalachero (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Regina George (Mean Girls) → Regina George – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Mean Girls character is clearly more notable than the sprinter, having lasting and very notable cultural impact (read the page for that). Last discussion left no consensus and the creation of the DAB. Since then, I've re-written the page to include the character's cultural impact and significance in popular culture and American politics, clearly showing she's the more notable Regina. Characters' page view stats and sprinter's shows the Mean Girls character is the primary topic. I inputted the "percentage increase" formula to compare page views for both pages in the month of January 2025, and found that the Mean Girls' character has approximately 3,081% more views than the sprinter. I think the character should be moved to "Regina George", a hatnote added for the sprinter, and DAB page deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. jolielover♥talk 08:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support as this article is the clear primary topic DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Page views aren't the sole criterion for determining primary topics. I think we should move the bar higher for making a fictional character primary over a living person, as this can feel like something of a slight to the living person, whereas fictional characters only have fictional feelings. Here's a more comprehensive comparison of page views. The mean girl is in the hundred-thousand views range, as is her ex-best friend Janis Ian, who is less notable than the singer who had a recent spike in views, in February. I'm not sure why, perhaps comparisons were made with "Messy" girl Lola Young? This feels more like an edge case to me, than a clear primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic. Looking at Pageviews since Feb 2024 when the last RM concluded, the Mean Girls character has 95% of total views. Per Wikinav 65%–70% of readers navigate from the Regina George DAB page to the Mean Girls article. In addition to usage, the character is primary by long-term significance; the original film was a massive success in 2004 and has had numerous adaptations, including last year's film, and continued cultural relevance. The sprinter's career highlights were 2010–2016 with no evidence of significant ongoing coverage. There is no policy-based reason to prioritize a living person over a fictional character. The comparisons to Janis Ian (Mean Girls) and Harry Potter (character) are mostly irrelevant. Primary topic and DAB decisions depend on the particular set of facts concerning the various subjects with the same name. Some well-known subjects share a name with other famous people and end up disambiguated while some relatively obscure figures don't share a name or are determined to be primary over some even more obscure subject with the same name.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nomination and @Myceteae, particularly the navigation stats. Reception and legacy section makes the cultural significance clear Judegr03 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.