Category talk:Sports deaths in New Jersey

Category header
As imported from Talk:Pedals (bear)

Category:Sports deaths in New Jersey. Bear-hunting is a sport. Article extensively discuses death related to the sport.Djflem (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many who would disagree that bear-hunting is a "sport". Our own article Bear hunting mentions the word only once and this is not in the lead. DrChrissy (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Bear hunting's status as a sport is controversial. Category:Sports deaths in New Jersey states that it is for "People who have died as a result of injuries sustained while participating in, training for, or spectating sporting events in New Jersey", and is a subcategory of Category:Accidental deaths in New Jersey. Pedals is the only non-human listed; while some might argue for animal personhood, that's even more controversial than whether bear hunting is a sport. And Pedals death was certainly not accidental. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The people part is an arbitrary header and can/should be removed as cats are self-explanatory and should be not qualified. Inclusion of cat in parent cat does necessarily mean exclusion of items in child cat. Hunting (including of bears) is considered a sport, whether it's controversial or not is not a criteria nor is animal personhood. (both are not relevant). The animal was killed as a result of a sanctioned sports activity. As is policy, changes should not be made until the matter is settled.Djflem (talk)
 * I disagree. Hunting is most certainly not universally considered to be a sport.  It seems to me absurd to place this article in a category which is clearly intended to mean humans. DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:Categorization Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it should contain, how they should be subcategorized, and so on. DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The category was created in August 2008 with an arbitrary header added one editor. As seen |here a parent category Category:Accidental human deaths in New Jersey was changed to Category:Accidental deaths in New Jersey, which eliminated the use of the word "human". Perhaps eight years ago the original author felt a need to include the header, but that has evolved considering the circumstances. Later, in 2010, that editor in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6 goes on to mention that chimpanzees would eligible for the cat w/o the word human. Addtionally, universal acceptance as a criteria doesn't seems to be a valid argument.Djflem (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are much more important edits to be made rather than arguing about the inclusion of 1 category on a small article. However, if "conditions" had "evolved" regarding the heading, shouldn't you have discussed these at the talk page rather than unilaterally deleting the heading? DrChrissy (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Be bold led to above discussion. I'm going to adapt, rather than delete, the heading & hope it will be satisfactory.Djflem (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been reverted three times by three different editors. I suggest that that probably means it's not a satisfactory change and you should not keep trying to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As the person who created the category Good Ol’factory added the arbitrary header, which seems to be in contradiction to later statements made by him/her as described above i accidental deaths. Why is the inconsistency?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because I'm apparently one of those idiotic editors who can sometimes see both sides of an issue? The header was not exactly arbitrary, as it was copied from other similar categories. I added it, but I did not design the criteria. The criteria themselves may be somewhat arbitrarily chosen, but they weren't arbitrarily applied to this particular category. My later comment about a chimp was an idea I threw out at the time. I may or may not still think it's a good argument or position. Anyway, it's all about consensus—I don't think that what I specifically think about the issue should govern the situation. I don't have super strong views one way or the other, and can see both sides. But I can see that the consensus so far on this issue is that animals not be included, so I'm fine with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)