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.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 11,041,143 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report8 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 sourcedmust 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.
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
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
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is this really important enough to mention? In any event, this request is not specific enough - you need to specify the exact wikitext you want to be added and where it should be added - just "please add content about bar" is not enough. * Pppery *it has begun... 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I hoped you would add it, I think the question should be for you. Do you think it is unimportant to such an extend that it should be excluded - and, if so, per what policy/guideline? As for your "not specific enough" comment, see WT:Edit requests#Suggestion. Thanks. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems incredibly unimportant and not notable at all. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter how (un)important it "seems" according to random editor X, nor if editor Y wants to "mention" it is (un)encyclopaedic. We have policies and guidelines. If reliable sources (the 3 used above are Digital Spy, The Cut, Time, but there are many others) publish about it because they decided the material is notable, then who cares what you random editors think? I get that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we need to discuss what we add or not, but if you start with your personal views, instead of what we can extrapolate from sources, then why should I even bother continuing writing anything here. Over and over this same thing. You think a subject being a Harry Potter fan isn't important, because it's children's literature or whatever is going on in your head. But who cares what you think. You are nobodies. I already asked you clearly why it should be excluded, and "per what policy/guideline". You completely ignore these questions. It's like you don't understand how discussions work, that you need to substantiate your stances with arguments. All I see is, let's gang up on this IP editor, so we get a majority, and then we can ignore everything else. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Who cares what you think? If any or all three of those sources said that Robbie's favourite colour was blue, do we throw that in as well? Not every single detail about a person's life is encyclopaedic, and just because it might appear in one or more sources, doesn't mean that it must be included, otherwise this site would be bogged down with so much trivia that it would no longer be an encyclopaedia. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs) 16:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reaction to your "Who cares what you think?". Nobody should care what I think, because I, like you, are a nobody. "If any or all three of those sources said that Robbie's favourite colour was blue, do we throw that in as well?" Can you imagine if that wasn't mentioned in passing, but Time published "Margot Robbie Confesses That She Once Lied to ... color blue." And at Digital Spy, "Suicide Squad's Margot Robbie is a MASSIVE color blue nerd". You know why you are comparing apples with oranges? Because you randomly came up with a favorite color blue, while the sources discuss her being a Harry Potter fan. And "doesn't mean that it must be included", but also doesn't mean we should exclude it. Either way, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, the article being a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Robbie. Her being a massive Harry Potter fan, it is an essential part of her being. It makes her her. It is a core part of her early life and her personal life. Or, maybe not. But we could have had a normal, civilized discussion about that, instead of you essentially telling me to go F myself with my retarded idea. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter being a fantasy kids thing. If the sources had said she was a huge fan of any fiction, it would need to meet a fairly high bar to be considered encyclopedic. To claim that being a Harry Potter fan is “an essential sort of her being” is a huge leap and it certainly not what she is notable for. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I really do think the problem you have with the material is Harry Potter being a fantasy kids thing. If the sources would've talked similarly about her being a massive Plato or Shakespeare aficionado, it would've already been in the article. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)