The contents of the Wrigley Field ivy page were merged into Wrigley Field and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
A fact from Wrigley Field ivy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that any baseballs that get hit and lodged in the Wrigley Field ivy(pictured) score the batter a double?
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)[reply]
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. --Jayron3213:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Jayron3214:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As an admin, I am mostly unaware of jokes. I do, however, try to focus discussions on improving articles and not making jokes. --Jayron3214:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
