Talk:Jill Bennett (British actress)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jill Bennett.jpg

http://www.nndb.com/people/568/000101265/jill-bennett-1.jpg

Image:Jill Bennett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No indication provided of the margin of importance, contra-indication provided of readership usage, base page should remain a disambiguation page. JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Jill Bennett (British actress) → Jill Bennett – She looks more important than the American actress by a clear margin. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Jill Bennett (American actress) gets consistently more pageviews than Jill Bennett (British actress), though not by a large margin, so I propose making that the primary topic. Should there not be consensus for that, however, I would support this proposal as second best. It's better to have half the 900+ monthly readers who land on the dab page get directly to an article than to have none of them get where they expect. Station1 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per the combined results of PatGallacher and Station1, there is no primary topic, therefore a disambiguation page should be implemented (and is the status quo). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I use to be under the impression that our policy/convention was to avoid a dab page when there are only two uses of a given name, even if neither meets primary topic criteria. Then I read WP:TWODABS and came to understand that avoiding the dab page is only supposed to happen when one of the two uses meets the criteria. I think the general idea is that landing on a dab page is preferable to landing on the wrong page, even if the wrong page has a hatnote link to the other article. Given that, one of the uses has to be pretty dominant to overcome the "cost" of sending everyone searching for the minority topic to the wrong article. In this case we have the claim that the British one "looks more important than the American actress by a clear margin", while Station1 has determined that the American gets more page view counts. I don't see a strong argument in favor of either being primary, and suggest we follow WP:TWODABS guidance and leave it alone. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- It is inevitable that an active actress in her 30s will get more Ghits than one who died 25 years ago. That does not mean that the American one is more important. Since there are only two of them, we do not need a dabpage. One (perhaps) the British actress can be at Jill Bennett; the other can be linked via a dab-hatnote. This will bring users to the desired article in just as many clicks as with a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the above references were to page views, not google hits. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per B2C. TWODABS does not say that we should never have a dab page for only two items, only that we should not have a dab page when one is a clear primary topic. I don't see that either actress is the primary topic here. The American gets more page views, but it appears the Pom probably has greater long-term significance – I think this balances out about evenly. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Her age

Check the records at RADA (Royal Acedamy of Dramatic Art), and I think you'll find that that birth-year of 1931 is a bit later than the true one. 109.154.18.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives her year of birth as 1926. https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-39924 GilesMartin1945 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Owners role

Not listed. Spicemix (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)