Talk:Serenity (actress)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as requested. Hadal (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as previous RMs consensus. Also revert any undiscussed moves in category In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and
  -- Calidum 03:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom and
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Or looks like follow the category. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and
  (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The reading of

WP:CONCISE refers to the title not the dab, and we do not clip (dabs) simply to make them short when that is the category. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose as per
  WP:PRECISE. There is good opportunity here to present a clear view of the valid form of work that she does. GregKaye 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support no dab needed per
  Savannah. --Cavarrone 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. "Actress" is one who acts, right? But does a "pornographic actress" act? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To paraphrase an old joke, we've already established what she is; now we're just discussing the genre. If she's not a (former) actress, then "pornographic actress" is just as incorrect as "actress" unmodified. Either all porn categories and dabs should have actor/actress removed - perhaps replaced by "performer" - or the qualifier "pornographic" should be removed from dabs unless needed as a distinguisher. 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if she did not "act" that would at most be a case for calling her a bad actress not that she was not an actress. Also, if we did go by the distinction that she was not a actress we could not use pornogtaphic actress either since we would still be calling her an actress.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: per my comment above, on the belief that rebuilding the entire category hierarchy is unlikely to happen. 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.