Talk:Wrigley Field ivy

Really?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia has an article about Wrigley Field, and one about the Wrigley Field renovations, not to mention an article about everything imaginable about the Cubs. Does it really need a separate article (and one that's only a few inches long at that) about the ivy? This should be combined into the Wrigley Field article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There are reasonable size limits on article, Wikipedia:Summary style does recommend breaking up larger articles according to size when articles get too long, and even gives some guidelines on how to do that. The "renovations" article seems reasonable given that merging it back to the main article would over-bloat an already full article. This one, however, is short and esoteric enough that it should probably be merged back to the main article. The information can be adequately covered there. If the main article is too long, there are better targets for splitting than this one anyways. --Jayron32 13:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that there are forthcoming articles about the Wrigley Field toilets, the Wrigley Field hot dogs, and the Wrigley Field smell, not to mention Wrigley Field in popular culture and Wrigley Field in unpopular culture. Are we to rob these of their place on the main page too? DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrigley Field is more than the ivy, it would violate UNDUE to put this in that article. Plus there are enough reliable sources to fulfil GNG for the ivy ro have its own article. The Royal C (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there are not. Someone created this article in good faith. The material can easily be condensed and put back into the main article. Being insulting to the people who put in hard work to research and write this article is not useful towards building either the encyclopedia or towards encouraging the growth of the community. Yes, this article should be merged back to the main one. No, people are not intending to create an article about a smell. And you knew that, but you just wanted to be rude and insulting and make someone feel bad. --Jayron32 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No Jayron, I did not, but dishonest personal attacks from admins are what I've come to expect here. I was making a joke. I've wikilinked it in case you are unfamiliar with the concept. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As an admin, I am mostly unaware of jokes. I do, however, try to focus discussions on improving articles and not making jokes. --Jayron32 14:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussions would stay more focussed if you refrain from making nasty things up about the motivations of others. I'm not sure how you imagine your behaviour is useful in building an encyclopaedia, or in encouraging community growth. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm out of here. I fixed an error that should have been fixed before it got on the main page, and really have no interest in this item of pub trivia anymore. Unwatched. Any further lies or personal attacks should be directed at my talk page, where it'll be easier to keep track of them for future reference. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sadly this is another example of an article being spun out for DYK credits. The content here can easily be merged back into the main article. I will tag it for mergin in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sadly it is, not for the first or second time either. At least now more and more people are seeing it for what is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrigley Field already has a section on the ivy, and the merge wouldn't add much at all to the length. I tagged Wrigley Field Renovations for merge as well. It's a lengthier article but much of the content really isn't needed at all.Dlthewave (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to go after Pesky's Pole and the Green Monster too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to need to check for any of these other unnecessary split-offs, so you've saved me the trouble. Any more? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge. The information on this short page could comfortably fit into the already-existing subsection in Wrigley Field. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge per Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As I have said above. Wrigley Field is not just the ivy. Merging all this into there would violate WP:UNDUE as it would then be more heavily weighted towards the ivy, which be it a minor part of the stadium has enough 3rd party sources to fulfill WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support This hyper-fine slicing of articles (apparently to pad one's new-article count) is ridiculous. Much of the material in this article is already in the Wrigley Field article anyway, so the expansion/skewing of that article feared by The C of E would be minimal. --JingleJim (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge I do know (and like) this subject and no, it should not have it's own encyclopedia article, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. There will be no skewing of the other articles Wrigley Field and History of Wrigley Field, when people cut-out per NOT trivia and UNDUE. To contend the ivy is just a minor part of this stadium (so should be kept) is nonsensical and would make this a POV Fork. We should not have a POV Fork for the ivy, either. If we are to treat this subject appropriately and encyclopedically, it has to be in the context of the stadium, otherwise we are just falsely representing the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose feeble attempts at humor to the contrary, this a perfectly notable topic covered in sufficient reliable sources to establish said notability. Lepricavark (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment It seems a misleading title to me, as a plant editor – it's not a true ivy (Hedera species); it's not the English name of a species of plant – according to the article it's Boston ivy; it's not a special individual plant, like a named ancient tree. So purely from a plant perspective, a merge would be better. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an argument for a name change, not a merge. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Plus COMMONNAME would go against changing the name as I doubt many Cubs fans or media outlets refer to the "Wrigley Field Hedera". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Merge It's notable in the context of Wrigley Field, but alone it's just a bunch of ivy hedera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Suppport Merge If there were a separate garden area, I could possibly see a separate article. However, I think the bleachers would deserve a separate article before the Ivy, but neither should really be split out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.