Talk:Margot Robbie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:00, 19 August 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margot Robbie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Australia: Queensland / Cinema / Television B‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Margot Robbie is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Women B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

This edit request 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)[reply]

I moved the mention of the Academy Award nomination. The sentence was referring to I, Tonya, but it was a little confusing. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

“Actress” means female.... which De Niro is not. ⌚️ (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 KyleJoan^talk 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). KyleJoan^talk 05:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

B. TheWrap's Alonso Duralde praised Robbie's "bravura physicality" in her portrayal of Quinn.^[2]

References

^ Chang, Justin (5 February 2020). "Review: 'Birds of Prey' lets a Joker-free Harley Quinn shine". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
^ Duralde, Alonso (5 February 2020). "'Birds of Prey' Film Review: Margot Robbie Strikes a Mallet-Blow for Female Empowerment". TheWrap.

Comments

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)[reply]
Maybe I'm ignorant but I had to look up what "bravura" meant. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Option B AComment seems less biased and is from more relevant critic. ~ HAL 333 23:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times has infinitely more prestige on film criticism than The Wrap. ⌚️ (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I meant A; I switched the two in my head. ~ HAL 333 00:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. KyleJoan^talk 10:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A per Krimuk2.0 and Trillfendi. Some1 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With all due respect, Krimuk2.0, I chose to include in the RFC the 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. KyleJoan^talk 09:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

B - Simply because it's shorter. A gives too much undue weight to her previous role. - Harsh (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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?

Current image
Image A - Taken in 2018
Image B - Taken in January 2018
Image C - Taken in January 2018
Image D - Taken in 2016

– Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D if I had to choose, but prefer current. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The problem with E and F is that they were cropped from a bigger image and appear blurry, at least to me. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep current or go with D They're the only ones of reasonable quality. ~ HAL333 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Can you explain how Image B is lower in quality? UncomfortablySmug (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

less sharp ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: Robbie's net worth. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Margot Robbie. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

add “film producer" on her ocupattion. And change that picture for one more recent. 2806:266:484:81C5:8514:905D:9197:4BE1 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Chang, Justin (5 February 2020). "Review: 'Birds of Prey' lets a Joker-free Harley Quinn shine". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 5 February 2020.

[2] Duralde, Alonso (5 February 2020). "'Birds of Prey' Film Review: Margot Robbie Strikes a Mallet-Blow for Female Empowerment". TheWrap.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 ==To add to article==
 To add to this article:  Robbie's net worth. [[Special:Contributions/173.88.246.138|173.88.246.138]] ([[User talk:173.88.246.138|talk]]) 22:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
+== Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021 ==
+{{edit semi-protected|Margot Robbie|answered=no}}
+add “film producer" on her ocupattion. And change that picture for one more recent. [[Special:Contributions/2806:266:484:81C5:8514:905D:9197:4BE1|2806:266:484:81C5:8514:905D:9197:4BE1]] ([[User talk:2806:266:484:81C5:8514:905D:9197:4BE1|talk]]) 04:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)