Talk:Regina George (Mean Girls)

On 16 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Regina George. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment Regina George (sprinter) would be preferred, per WP:NCSP#Athletics (track and field). 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Support both per nom. Underclass King (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support the other has 26,897 views compared with only 1,089[[1]] for this one. If anything the other is primary but a DAB would be fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A longer-term view of pageviews paints a different picture. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose 1st, Support 2nd per Necrothesp.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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.