This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On 3rd May 2009, an anonymous user deleted a bunch of references.
Was there a problem with those references ? ~ RJ4 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there was no objection, I have re-instated the refs. RJ4 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
One reference that should be deleted is her homepage as it is an advertorial for a skin care treatment, though it contains some minor citations/quotes from Margot, most of the content refers to Margot in a 'third party' context. Hence the whole site in itself is purely for comercial gain.
That's not a Reference, just an External Link. Is there a rule against links to commercial sites ? If so, that would mean we could not link to professional newspaper sites. RJ4 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Golden Globes 2014
Headline: "Aussie green and gold! Naomi Watts dazzles in metallic while Margot Robbie teams her plunging white with emerald accessories as actresses attend Golden Globes"
A bunch of other pictures from the Hollywood event. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Personal Info
Margot's personal info is incorrect. She is not the "eldest of three" children. She's actually the second YOUNGEST of FOUR children. Her father's name also isn't "Mike". The following link contains a reference to her "three" siblings. This in itself is evidence enough for changing the entry (although it doesn't mention her position in the family).
Interestingly, when I checked the sources included in the article, here and here, neither supported the names and occupations of her parents, nor a specific number of siblings. I've removed the two sentences as a result.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I'm a friend of the family, but obviously any info here needs to be verifiable using publicly accessible info. I appreciate your making the modification!101.162.14.236 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The personal info section is out of date - it uses 2010 sources (and poor sources at that). I suggest either update the section with relevant information, or delete the whole section. Paul haynes (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This personal information is incorrect.
Margot was born at Allamanda Hospital on the Gold Coast. Her Father still is a sugar cane farmer near Ayr in North Queensland. Margot has always had and maintains a close relationship with all the family including her father.Margot's grand parents Herb and Verna Kessler lived in Dalby and owned in partnership a grazing property at Meandarra which Margot and the family visited frequently.Dra56 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Doug Robbie
Do you have anyway to prove that? The problem is that we can't just change the article based on your word - anyone could create an account and claim to be family. Wikipedia needs reliable sources in order to verify any claim, and right now, the source we have says otherwise. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Will Smith
Didn't something happen between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa..tttz. (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid Google Search dates are disallowed since they're unsourced. Wikipedia also disallows the often-incorrect bio claims of IMDb. However, I did find a reliable source, AllMovie.com, for her birth date. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the actual articles given by the Google search, not the Google search dates. I'm sure at least one of them must be reliable. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The articles I saw on Google search were all either IMDb or non-RS blogs, fan pages and tabloid sites. Did you have a specific, citable source in mind?--Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
How about the sources from the "Early life" section? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was a discrepancy between the two. Performers not infrequently fudge their ages — see Mariah Carey, Li'l Kim and Marc Anthony, for example. In cases of equally reliable sources, we give both dates. Choosing one over the other would be POV. I'll adjust.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the Sydney Morning Herald article from 2008, before she was famous, seems much more credible to me; otherwise, she would have been 18 when she was on Neighbours, and why would the newspaper, a respected one, have not given the right age? (It's possible she lied to make herself appear older, I suppose.) That said, AllMovie.com is a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines, so while I would go with the 2008 newspaper article, that would be my POV. We have to include both dates until something definitive appears. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess this is fair for now. It will be interesting if any other news articles from before she was famous are found giving a similar age to the one given by the SMH? I doubt any actress ever chooses to give an older age and in almost all cases it's the opposite. Wikispeaks (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this should have been changed so quickly with only one article giving a different age. What if it was just a mistake by that reporter? I believe there are a few sources in the early life/early career sections to back up 1990 as her birth year. I remember she celebrated her 18th birthday while she was on Neighbours and that source is in the article somewhere. - JuneGloom07Talk 03:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
That was also my impression – that it was just a mistake. Perhaps the writer put the wrong age in the wrong article, perhaps there was another article being written at the same time about a 23-year-old person and it got mixed up? Those are the questions I would ask. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think for now the article should be taken for what it says without presumptions of error. The Sydney Morning Herald is a pretty respected news source with editors and such. If it was some blog or simple entertainment site it would make more sense perhaps to assume it was simply an error. Wikispeaks (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree. And perhaps the discrepancy being given here will prompt her or her people to address the it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Birthday
Her birthday is in July and she is 25. She celebrated her 25th birthday on the Set of Suicide Squad
EW says "25-year-old", but neither of the referenced Instagrams by her, nor what we can see of the cake, says 25. Also, the day a birthday is celebrated isn't necessarily the day the birthday is, and with a cake on the 4th day of the month, the birth date could be late the previous month. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
An anon-IP editor found an Elle interview published August 2015, in which Robbie says she is 24, which puts her birth year as circa 1991. Unlike what the anon IP claimed, the article gives no birth date. We don't know when the interview was conducted, but the writer also, separately, refers to Robbie as "a ... 24-year-old actress". If Robbie were 25 in August 2015, the writer would have said so. All we know for sure is that her age is given as 24 in August 2015. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
An anon IP changed the birth date by essentially saying the Sydney Morning Herald is not RS. But it is. A redlink editor gave July 2, 1990, based on a post on Robbie's verified Instagram page, but A) that's a primary source, and B) the Instagram doesn't say a word about "July 2" — all it says is "75 weeks ago." Elle and the Sydney Morning Herald are equally RS and give different ages. Before favoring one over the other, which is POV, we need to reach consensus here, as per Wikipedia protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Surely we can remove the SMH source saying her age is around 29-30, as in 2015 she said she is 24? (and possibly 25 in accordance with the 2 July 1990 source depending on when the interview was conducted). She's clearly not born in 1985, despite what the SMH article claims. There's also source 11 in the Early Career part (http://web.archive.org/web/20080902010920/http://neighbours.com.au/Happy-Birthday-Margot-Robbie.htm) which says she celebrated her 18th birthday in 2008. Sarahgj (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahgj (talk • contribs) 05:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Neighbours cite is very specific and agrees with AllMovie, which would have come well after Neighbours. Taken together with the Elle timeframe, I think we can go with that date, and simply note the SMH in the footnote so that the discrepancy is addressed. I'll do it now.
And the original source for the whole controversy - the Sydney Morning Herald article here - just added a correction to it: "This article originally stated Margot Robbie's age at the time of publication was 23. She was in fact 17 years old.". Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Margot Robbie. 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:
I have just modified one external link on Margot Robbie. 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:
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have removed this section, as they don't impart any real enclyclopdic knowledge, and serves to promote Margot Robbie in an unhealthy business like manner, which is against Wikipedia core policies, in particular, WP:NOTADVERTISING and subverts Wikipedia Terms of Use. scope_creep (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think NOTADVERTISING is relevant or appropriate here, and I don't see what this has to do with the TOU. Her work in advertising is part of her career just like her work in movies. Saying that she is working in an advertising campaign is not itself advertising nor is it in any way promotional - it's just a statement of fact, and as long as it's well sourced and neutrally written, it's perfectly acceptable. -- irn (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Irn. Scope creep also removed a similiar sentence here, and I think Scope hasn't understood it yet. Moreover, this user thinks that someone —probably me— is "inexperienced" because of this sentence, but I didn't even put it there. Sebastian James (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Scope creep: You started the conversation here, and I responded to your objections four days ago. You have yet to resume this conversation, although I see that you have been active elsewhere on Wikipedia. Reverting without participating in the talk page discussion is disruptive and makes collaboration impossible. Please come back to this conversation. -- irn (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a cultural aspect of different societies, but I don't want to come to Wikipedia, having read an article and find the person is selling something and I should buy it. There is numerous places on the web, where it is acceptable to do that. Not here. To say it is part of their job is a bit disingenous, because nobody anywhere is saying you can't advertise, if you want. Just don't do it here. This is not an advertising platform. irn , it states in the text promoting. Wikipedia is a charity, and as such, it operates in a strict legal framework. If goes back, it will go up to WP:COIN and they will deal with it. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
My two cents: I don't think the idea is to "sell" anything. When we add information about her film role, it isn't because we want to sell movie tickets. Of course, we must take care that the wording is neutral. The fact that Robbie is the face of Calvin Klein's fragrance is quite notable IMO, as it's a pretty high-profile gig. The other bit about Nissan isn't as notable, but if we tweak the wording and provide a better reference, we should be able to keep it in the article. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying you should buy anything. Where are you getting that from? All it says is that Robbie is working for these companies. Why do you think "Robbie works for [x]" is equivalent to "You should buy [x]"?
And why COIN? What is the conflict of interest you see here? Who has a conflict of interest in this? -- irn (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, Irn. We have pictures in which she is "promoting" a film. It doesn't mean we are trying to sell tickets either. Same things applies to her other jobs as well. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That is how branding works. It all brand recognition, and building brand awareness. It's one step, in series of steps of building a brand, so when a person wants a particular item, whereever it is, they associate Margot Robbie, sexy, lets buy it. They have already seen it somewhere else, advertising on a different medium and that creates the expectation in the mind. It is an old hat, and everybody knows what it is. It is instrinsic presence of the advertising here, which I think so makes it so insidious. You may think insiduous is too strong a word, but the advertisers dont think that. They are spending billions to get adverts on to here, on one form or another, to get ther brand going. I am always suspicious of folk, who think in terms which are anathema to the best interests of WP. I think your so inured to the effect of it, you don't even know it is happening. COIN as the word promote is clearly visible. Clearly it is promotional. 18:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add that edits so far have been in Good-Faith by all parties. scope_creep (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
RfC on endorsements
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It appears to me the consensus is that provided there are independent reliable sources to support the mentions of her endorsements, they are encyclopedia facts, and including them does not violate the Terms of UseorWP:NOTADVERTISING. Obviously this does not mean they should be gratuitously listed in great detail, common sense applies to which endorsements are relevant and supported by independent reliable sources. Care should be taken to avoid the mentions being promotional in themselves. (non-admin closure) Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
No - Her work in advertising is part of her career just like her work in movies. This is standard practice across the encyclopedia. Saying that she is working in an advertising campaign is not itself advertising nor is it in any way promotional - it's just a statement of fact, and as long as it's well sourced and neutrally written, it's perfectly acceptable. -- irn (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes When the article states the word promoting in the text which doesn't impart any encyclopedic knowledge outwith advertising the fact that she is selling cars, and that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Her work, including branding, etc, are her business, not Wikipedias'. Of the Top 100 websites, on the Alexa ranking, all of them are now using a business model which is based partly or fully on advertising. Wikipedia is the exception. Its model is not based on advertising, at any level. Therefore is no reason to inform the reader that she is working in advertising, as that is not Wikipedia concern. It doesn't impart knowledge, except the fact she is advertising. Can Wikipedia not have a standalone independent existence, and represent only the fact, and leave the advertising slime behind. scope_creep (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No - per my comments above. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No (Summoned by bot) When people do a job, we include it. When people give sacks at a charity, we include it. That someone has a job as an advertising figure backed by a RS does not violate our TOU. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, L3X1 -- the RFC is framed in such a way that your answer should be "no", given your explanation. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No - Stating that she is working for/with a company in an endorsement/advertising capacity is an encyclopedic fact about her. I personally would leave out further details mentioning specific products. Maybe inlcude it somewhere in the Career section under 2015-present. I would phrase it something like this: "In 2016 Robbie began work on an advertising campaign for clothing designer Calvin Klein and again in 2017 for Automotive Manufacturer Nissan." It lists the relevant information without actually promoting a specific product, just who she was working for, what she was doing, and when. Fusion2186 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No - Per above, stating that she is working in advertising is not the same as advertising. As long as the statements are verifiable in third-party sources, merely noting her involvement with particular companies is not an endorsement or advertisement of those companies. If the line of reasoning advocated here were pursued, wikipedia could not even mention the profession of anyone who works primarily in the advertising industry. CodeTalker (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2018 (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.
Infobox image
Which image should be used as her main display image, this (can be cropped, if necessary) or this? A head shot is indeed preferable, but the latter picture is a side profile and isn't ideal either. There are more options here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Lead / infobox images should usually be a high quality, close head/shoulders crop showing the best likeness of the subject. The first option isn't particularly high resolution (which cropping will worsen), has some colour quality, distracting background and lack of contrast issues, the second is crisp, high quality, is a head/shoulders crop, and is an immediate recognisable likeness. Images galleried below for side by side comparison at near the size they would be in the article . (Hohum@) 00:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Template used to give an idea of a possible crop.
Not as immediately recognisable, poor yellowed skin tones, lower resolution, less crisp, distracting background.
Instantly recognisable, high quality crop, crisp.
What about this image, where she's at least looking directly at the camera? - JuneGloom07Talk 01:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It has all of the problems of the first image, and I don't see what the benefit of looking directly at the camera is. (Hohum@) 17:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
There's another option here, even though it's another side profile. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we please wrap this up, I want to know which image we should be using. I don't see any consensus to replace the lead image with the yellow-backed image. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no consensus for either. I hope more editors comment on their preference. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
If you're just looking for more opinions, I like the gold background crop above. The gold background and lower quality are less than ideal, but I think the quality is high enough, and I disagree that it's not as recognizable (indeed, I think it's more recognizable). -- irn (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Go for it.. although you'll likely get the same people making the same points above.
ps. the longer established image until a few days ago was the central one above, so that would be the one to keep in the case of "no consensus" anyway. (Ironically put there by the same editor who now wants to change it). (Hohum@) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
True, but there have been other images used before that for longer periods of time, with no real discussion or analysis of which image ought to be used at any point. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd support this image however if we cannot use that then my next choice would be B .... but yeah back on topic best to start an RFC if nothing can be agreed here. –Davey2010Talk 22:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably best to wait for the other RFC above to close before starting an RFC about the images, there isn't any hurry. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Elle source bases this on a name tag that says "Mrs. Tom Ackerley" and adds, "Whether or not Margot will adopt Ackerley as her professional last name, or keep her maiden name as her stage name is unknown." We therefore won't be amending the name unless Margot herself confirms the change. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ChicaDanesa Please don't add the possible new name without getting some kind of consensus first. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
RFC on infobox image
Image B clearly has the majority here. AIRcorn(talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
As promised in the section above, this is an RFC to get input on which image should be used in the infobox. The image has been boldly replaced several times before without much discussion, the images used before are included below, with some new ones. If no consensus, the longstanding/default image is Option B. I will not ping anyone since I assume this page is on the watchlists of those interested. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The images presented as options are below, labeled A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I. (feel free to add other images)
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Option E
Option F
Option G
Option H
Option I
Option J
Survey
B - Head/shoulders crop, instantly recognisable, not an extreme expression, high quality and resolution, good colour quality, no distracting background/foreground. (Hohum@) 14:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
B (Summoned by bot) All the images are acceptable so this is really a judgment call. This one just appears to be the best quality and the most flattering to the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
AorD (Summoned by bot) as it's the best representation of the subject, which is the main purpose of an infobox image. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
D is a crop of A, what is your preference? Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I would have preferred D over A, but since it results in a reduction in quality, I'll go with A. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
BorDorH (Summoned by bot) - an individual subject's photo should cleanly identify the subject without distracting detail. I think that any of the listed photos do so.--Rpclod (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
F being the first option and B being the second - F seems to show her face more or atleast a bit better however one issue I have with that image is the water bottle, B because again you can see her face better and there's nothing infront of her, Although you can see her face on all of them I feel the gold background is distracting. –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
B In my opinion, this is the best photo with the fewest distracting elements. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
B. None is really awful, but C and F are the least desirable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
D. Clear shoulders-up looking forward. Others have her looking to far off to the side for my liking. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
A - Summoned by bot. Close enough to get details of face and the fact she's looking head on certainly helps. Meatsgains(talk) 01:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
D - Clear pic with least distractions. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
H - Headshot with nicely contrasting background gives a cleaner, sharper image, especially on mobile, than any of the options with a gold background will. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
J Frontal pose, no distracting background or foreground. Options B, G, H are too pink/reddish. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 23:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
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.
(Paragraph 3)
"Robbie received critical acclaim in 2017 for her portrayal of the disgraced figure skater Tonya Harding in the biographical film I, Tonya, which she also produced. She gained critical acclaim for her performance and received nominations for the Academy Award, Golden Globe, SAG, and BAFTA Award for Best Actress."
Needlessly repeats gaining critical acclaim
Suggest:
Robbie received critical acclaim in 2017 for her performance as the disgraced figure skater Tonya Harding in the biographical film I, Tonya (which she also produced) receiving nominations for the Academy Award; Golden Globe; SAG and BAFTA Award for Best Actress.
90.252.221.65 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Positive/negative reviews
Is there a reason editors will only allow mentions of positive reviews in this article? Saying a movie has positive reviews and the source is rotten tomatos is ok, right? What if rotten tomatoes has negative reviews? --That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict you here, albert square, but Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are uniformly used in Hollywood film-related articles to quantify a film's reception, as long as it is neutrally worded. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Pronunciation
My empirical impression is that lots of people (or perhaps lots of Americans) pronounce her name MAR-gətorROH-bee. See [1][2] for example. One may judge them, but that doesn't mean a notation wouldn't be helpful.
Also I suspect it is not uncommon nowadays for someone named Margot to be called MAR-gət. Somedictionaries suggest this. If so what happened to the name Ralph may be happening to this name too (spelling pronunciation). One may lament that, but that doesn't mean a notation at Ralph Fiennes, for example, wouldn't be helpful.
What do other editors here think? Nardog (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's helpful. -- irn (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the pronunciation for common names should be noted when it differs from the most common one, which in this case is MAR-goh for Margot and ROB-ee for Robbie. To me it just seemed out of place how it's the only article with the pronunciation of "Margot" noted (besides Margot of course), but I guess that's related to her relative popularity.
As for Robbie, the ROH-bee pronunciation seems like some sort of hyperforeignism, and not a common one at that, so noting ROB-ee also seems out of place to me, especially since the spelling wouldn't suggest the former pronunciation. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There was an RFC about Robbie's infobox image last year, before this image, which is a much-clearer face shot, was available on Commons. I've made a WP:BOLD edit on the article, and if anyone objects to the current image, please do so here. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the change, as it's a much better image. - JuneGloom07Talk 01:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The one that I added is not included in RFC nor any other discussion. It's from this year and represents the person better (because of her age etc.). Sebastian James what's the T? 14:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: There isn't any consensus to gain. Check this page first. The image I added has nothing to do with the past incidents (this was in April, and now we are at the end of 2019). We don't have to start a discussion every time we add a clearly better and more recent picture. Sebastian James what's the T? 15:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
"clearly better" is subjective. "Recent" by a few years is not how we choose an infobox image. When in disagreement, let others weigh in and maintain WP:STATUSQUO until then. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
She doesn't look like the way she did 6 years ago. Put an image from the subject's childhood then. It looks like it represents better in your opinion. My talk page and the things I wrote above wisely says, but as expected, you don't understand. Sebastian James what's the T? 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The 2013 image is clearer, she is facing forward into the camera, and her hair is not obscuring parts of her face, which is why I prefer it (for what it's worth). - JuneGloom07Talk 18:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Article incorrectly states Margot Robbie was nominated for an Academy Award for Bombshell (2019) - She was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture, Oscars noms aren't till later January. 81.102.191.107 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I moved the mention of the Academy Award nomination. The sentence was referring to I, Tonya, but it was a little confusing. - JuneGloom07Talk 02:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
Article incorrectly states that Margot Robbie “was the first actress nominated for an Academy Award for playing a real-life athlete.” The citation specifies that she was the first nominated for playing an Olympian, not just an athlete. Robert De Niro, for example, was nominated and won for playing real-life boxer Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, decades before I, Tonya.
2600:1008:B04E:B81:35D8:D1AA:1EF:E64E (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
“Actress” means female.... which De Niro is not. ⌚️ (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Infobox image discussion RFC
There are several more recent images on Wikimedia Commons that can be used. It just seems odd to use an image from 7 years ago when she looks different (read: older) now. What do you think of either of these for instance?
She doesn't look that much different, and the current image is better quality than those you have suggested. Quality tops how recent an image is, IMO. Alex (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Image C I think it should be a image from 2018, if this is the only offer of images I choose this option. Mikola22 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
D if I had to choose. I like C too. But ultimately, there’s nothing unsatisfactory about the current image. Trillfendi (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing wrong with the current image. I’m not sure what the original editor is on about, but she doesn’t look that different at all. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Image C - C looks the best out of the 4 and is from 2018, I've also removed "Editors/IPs are constantly changing the image so figured I'd start an RFC" because those were my exact words at another RFC and whilst I don't own words I certainly don't appreciate my words being taken and reused without any changes. Anyway C's the best one. –Davey2010Talk 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Current image – For the reasons I stated higher up on the talk page. It's clearer, she is facing toward the camera, and her hair is not obscuring her face. I don't see that much difference in her facial features compared to the 2018 images. - JuneGloom07Talk 01:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep Current Image second choice is Image D. Images A-C are more recent however they are lower quality and more blurry. Image D is more recent than the current image, and good quality however it is slightly harder to identify the subject as the image is taken from an angle and there is some hair in the way of her face. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Image A, B, C, or D. I would advocate using any of the more recent images. 7 years old is quite a long time and we have more recent images that are of good quality so I see no reason not to use a more recent image. Helper201 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are two more recent good quality images we could use -
Image E - Taken in May 2019
Image F - Taken in July 2019
I would also advocate E or F over the current image. Helper201 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem with E and F is that they were cropped from a bigger image and appear blurry, at least to me. - JuneGloom07Talk 17:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yea, sadly, they are blurry, and her eye makeup in F makes her look drastically different than how she usually looks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep current or go with D They're the only ones of reasonable quality. ~ HAL333 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Which of the images is free? That's the one we use, as free imagery is always used if possible over fair use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep current or C - Summoned by bot. The current infobox image is the best option out of them all however I understand its 7 years old now... That being said, if we are to replace, I preferred Image C, where her smile looks natural and lighting looks favorable. The other replacement options either look staged, forcing a smile, or look too candid. Let's be honest though, it'd be hard to get a bad photo of Robbie. Meatsgains(talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC about Birds of Prey performance review
Which statement is more appropriate for inclusion as a review of Robbie's involvement/performance in Birds of Prey?RfC relisted by KyleJoantalk 14:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC). KyleJoantalk 05:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
A.Justin Chang took note of how much of an improvement the character was from her appearance in Suicide Squad, saying that "Yan and Robbie have largely salvaged Harley Quinn from the dour, sexist ugliness of that 2016 movie".[1]
A. The existing EW review in the article already gives us a direct quote about her performance, so review no. 1 (LA times) gives us a different perspective, as it talks about how "Yan and Robbie have largely salvaged Harley Quinn from the dour, sexist ugliness of that 2016 movie [Suicide Squad]". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm ignorant but I had to look up what "bravura" meant. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Not knowing something is, by definition, ignorant. I think what you mean to say is "Perhaps I'm less well educated than the typical reader ..."--that's certainly plausible. We still don't know whether you're picking A or B. -- Jibal (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Option BAComment seems less biased and is from more relevant critic. ~ HAL333 23:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times has infinitely more prestige on film criticism than The Wrap. ⌚️ (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I meant A; I switched the two in my head. ~ HAL333 00:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? How is that possible? And can we even rely on which you're picking now? And what the heck does "biased" mean in this context? A review is an opinion. But even then, how can "bravura physicality" be "biased"? Toward or against what? But maybe you actually meant the comment about an improvement ... who the heck knows. -- Jibal (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
B as proposer. Stating that Robbie embodied Harley Quinn with bravura physicality is a clear review of her performance, while saying something is an improvement is not definitive in quality nor is it clear how it pertains to Robbie. Not only that, this article states: Although the film [Suicide Squad] received generally negative reviews, Robbie's performance as Quinn was widely praised. So, did the character receive even wider praise for Birds of Prey? Furthermore, this article is about Robbie, not Quinn. If the Marlon Brando article does not have a statement regarding how Premiere lists Vito Corleone as history's greatest film character, then I don't see how saying Birds of Prey's Quinn is better than Suicide Squad's Quinn is appropriate. KyleJoantalk 10:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
A per Krimuk2.0 and Trillfendi. Some1 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
B. I find A to be just a poor sentence all around. As KyleJoan noted, it says nothing about Robbie's performance. Maybe more importantly, it makes no sense: what does it mean for a character to improve? She got less evil? If you're going to use the LA Times review, it would be better to quote from the review directly, rather than use this strange attempt at a paraphrase. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The review says, "Yan and Robbie have largely salvaged Harley Quinn from the dour, sexist ugliness of that 2016 movie"; the paraphrase is what Kyle Joan chose to include in the RFC, without mentioning the quote, which I have done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, Krimuk2.0, I chose to include in the RFCthe exact paraphrase that was inserted into the article on 5 February. I thought it would be inappropriate to revise a proposed addition that I did not write myself due to the risk of misrepresenting it, so I listed the paraphrase verbatim out of respect for the user who did write it–you. KyleJoantalk 09:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about the context. How it was paraphrased in the article on 5th Feb is subject to improvement, and is a separate issue. The current issue is about which review to include in the article. Editors obviously won't be able to judge which review is better if we don't quote exactly what the review says in the RFC introduction. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, now I'm confused as to what this RfC is about. Is it just about which review to quote, or is it about the specific wording? In any case, I still don't like the presence of the "how much of an improvement the character was" paraphrase, because I still don't understand it. And I have to say, though the original LA Times quote is better, that one is not totally clear either. It seems to be saying that the new film is more fun and less sexist - but if so, why mention Robbie there? After all, in both films, she just said the lines she was told to say. Did she do a better acting job in the second one? Or maybe the review is praising Robbie as producer? Not clear. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Both A and B - um, is there a reason why we cannot use both? Sure, the LA Times has more street cred, but the second one is certainly the soul of brevity. I guess I do not get the point of the RfC; they do not appear to be oppositional points of view, and they state something that only enhances the understanding of the subject. Please explain what I must be missing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A &B - Summoned by bot. I'm with Jack Sebastian on this one. Let's include both especially since the snippet from TheWrap is so short.Meatsgains(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
B - Simply because it's shorter. A gives too much undue weight to her previous role. - Harsh (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
B The second sentence (B) seems to be more appropriate; since it is briefer than (A) and its texts is enough for it; and Harsh's viewpoint can be true, too. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Infobox Image Discussion (2021)
I think a change in infobox image is warranted, given that the current image is from 2013. Obviously, she hasn't really aged, but I'd argue that Image B is just as good as the current image, if not better. And given that it's more recent, I think it should be the one we go with. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Current Image: Taken in 2013
Image A: Taken in 2018
Image B: Taken in 2018
The real problem here is that she’s too gorgeous to choose just which one would best. It’s not netural to say but it’s true. Trillfendi (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Others are all low quality relatively. Recentness doesn’t override quality. If we can’t get a good recent picture, stick with the current one. She hasn’t changed that much anyway, at least not to my eye. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain how Image B is lower in quality? UncomfortablySmug (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. I concur with other editors that quality is paramount here. Robbie has barely visibly aged since 2013 and it remains a sufficient representation of the subject.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
To add to article
To add to this article: Robbie's net worth. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. —Sirdog9002(talk) 04:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image
Pinging @Spy-cicle, Rcarter555, Beehivexo, and KyleJoan: based on recent edits. Should we update the infobox image? The photograph was taken in 2013, which was almost a decade ago. There are several photos of her from 2019 (see here) that are suitable replacements. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Not pinged, but part of the previous image discussions. The problem with most of the 2019 images is that they are of inferior quality, with most appearing blurry. The 2013 image might be almost a decade old, but the quality is very good and she is looking directly at the camera. She has neutral make up (compared to the first two in that category) and her hair is not obscuring her face. As User:ProcrastinatingReader once said Recentness doesn't override quality. To me, she doesn't appear to have changed all that much and she is still very much recognisable in the 2013 image. - JuneGloom07Talk 04:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. There’s nothing wrong with the current photo and she hasn’t changed much at all. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The 2013 image is vastly superior in quality in comparison to the 2019 ones thus not worth changing until there is a suitable replacement. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 10:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Those two areas are defintely far closer to raw image quality (or on par) to the 2013 one, now it is trying to find a good angle (ie looking at camera, unobscured photo). Though worth consulting with some of the other editors. I believe the infobox image has been brought up previously in the archives. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rcarter555 Totally disagree but whatever, i think she changed, people changes over the years, you know? By the way there's 2016 San Diego Comic-Con photos with good quality, so, why keeping that one? For me, i disagree! The photo as to be changed! LRP19PT (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Can i get an answer please?? LRP19PT (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you have your answer. There's no consensus to change the photo. In the absence of consensus, the current edit stands. Rcarter555 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Infobox photo (The Consensus Thing)
@Rcarter555 Can i just change the photo? Please man, why the 2013 one? I don't understand, the photo's to old please man it haves almost a decade, let me just change it! I'm doing your consensus thing now, so please man! The quality is not really important, 2019 one doesn't have blurr, i don't see it! What matters is to have an image, and knowing who she is of course, otherwise the quality is not really important! Don't be selfish please, think about what other people think a little bit, have some empathy!... LRP19PT (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I AM thinking about what other people think. That's what consensus is all about. In order to change the photo, you have to have a consensus here on the talk page. So far, no one except you has preferred the new photo. Rcarter555 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
When is this photo gonna be changed? Can you just tell me? I really want that photo to be changed, it's unfair having a 2013 photo! Just understand me... LRP19PT (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The photo will be changed when there is a consensus to change it. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I totally get that it's unfair. Unfortunately, unless there's a good quality image released for fair use, our hands are tied. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0 Why you guys and you keep just being stubborn (not a "personal attack") by the quality?? There's 2016 which is a great quality even 2019 (for me it's not bad quality), there's some actors with San Diego Comic-Con photos so why can't Margot Robbie have it, and others can! So what's the matter??... Do you understand what i'm saying or no?? Try to understand it... I will always gonna keep pushing for changing this photo... When the consensus will come?? And they don't prefer the new photo maybe because there's people that didn't comment about it, but they think about it in their heads! @Rcarter555LRP19PT (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If they don’t comment on it, they can’t be counted toward consensus. We don’t read minds. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first sentence beneath Robbie’s photo, change “till” to “until” or “‘til”. Incorrect version is being used. “Born and raised in Queensland, Robbie began her career in 2008 on the television series Neighbours, on which she was a regular TILL (should be “until”) 2011. “ 73.9.190.206 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: All dictionaries I've looked up indicate till and until are interchangeable. Until indeed sounds somewhat more cromulent to me in the sentence in question, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this was a regional variation (consider WP:TIES). In any case provide a source that supports your assertion if you insist. Nardog (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Is the currently displayed photo indeed the best possible one?
Hi everybody,
I felt slight discomfort when looking at the currently selected photo (can explain why, if needed). Will it be acceptable to replace it with this one:
Margot Robbie (28601016915) (cropped) 2
(or with any other photo which would represent the actress better than the currently selected one)? Vbortz (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Aesthetically, I actually prefer the current one. However, if you have any other suggestions, I have an open mind. RJ4 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Considering Margot a Robbie was never in My Name is Earl, it makes sense it’s not mentioned. Perhaps you are thinking of Jaime Pressly? Rcarter555 (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024
This edit requesttoMargot Robbie has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Article says she worked three jobs simultaneously as a teenager. I think that should read "concurrently". 14.199.7.70 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing you meant to suggest "consecutively" (or "successively")? Because "simultaneously" and "concurrently" are basically used synonymously in everyday language, both meaning "at the same time"; with concurrently maybe spanning a longer time. Either way, the solution is to remove the word "simultaneously" all together, since the source (first reference) does not at all mention how she worked these jobs. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
