Talk:U.S. Route 2 in Vermont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moose[edit]

At best, moose are a tourist attraction. At worst, for skilled drivers, a threat in waiting. The quote was taken from a nationwide Associated Press article which was reprinted in my very distant state. IMO, we need something in these articles besides intersections. Roads are not identical. This one differs because it is pervaded by moose (in season, and sometimes out). Student7 (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But unless the road is known for having an outrash in moose incidents, it doesn't belong in a certain article. My suggestion would be finding if the route is known in general (not just one area), it just seems to trivial. Plus the threat in waiting piece doesn't really belong in a road article.Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 19:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the point of the nationwide Associated Press article, is that parts of four roads in Vermont, are indeed pervaded with moose to the point that the Vermont State Police, doing their job, has warned drivers of them. They probably total 40 miles of (what?) thousands of miles of road in Vermont.
And what prevents roads from having a history and other facts germane to the road? Where is it written that material must all be bland? Interstates have history and other interesting facts about them. So blandness is not required. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial though, are people coming to Wikipedia to find out what roads have moose invasions? Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 02:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the route description is "bland" is that the text dates back to when this page was split from the main US 2 article in 2009. The route descriptions in articles on multi-state routes that are long enough to have state-detail articles are more or less overviews, which explains why this article has such a basic description. You're more than welcome to expand it. (Seriously, the "someone else needs to expand/fix this article" attitude that I've seen from a few editors over the past few months is absurd and makes no sense on a wiki.)
As for the moose topic, the added piece is definitely too trivial for the lead. There might be a place for it in a reworked route description, but even that's debatable. – TMF (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York and Vermont?[edit]

Shouldn't the title of this page be "U.S. Route 2 in New York and Vermont", as such format is used for other instances where the first few miles of a route are in a different state? Azmjc02 (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it's a negligible length of highway, such at 0.87 miles compared to 150 miles, we just go ahead and use the longer route's name. –Fredddie™ 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you for your assistance. :) Azmjc02 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to revive this discussion, but I found an example of what I was talking about: U.S. Route 64 in Arizona and New Mexico. Theoretically, either this example's title should be changed or U.S. Route 2 in Vermont should be changed. Azmjc02 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2022[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 03:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


U.S. Route 2 in Vermont → U.S. Route 2 in New York and Vermont – Similar to U.S. Route 64 in Arizona and New Mexico, it has information on the New York segment of the highway, even if it’s negligible, and I thought it wild be on just Vermont and it wasn’t, this will avoid confusion. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think it would just be easier, and more concise, to move information about the New York portion of route 2 to the general U.S. Route 2 article. Mannysoloway (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then the Infobox needs to be changed and all information on NY moved out of this article, this Will be Vermont and nothing else.74.101.118.197 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—given that the New York segment is two orders of magnitude smaller, it doesn't need equal billing in the title. In fact, since the same can be said of the US 64 in Arizona and New Mexico, I'd say we can drop Arizona from that article's title. Imzadi 1979 → 17:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it might be better to list as "Vermont and New York" given how small the New York segment is. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to User:Azmjc02 and User:Fredddie from the discussion at #New York and Vermont?. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Imzadi1979. If the Vermont section of US 2 was 5 miles long, sure, we could include New York in the title. However, that's not the case so let's leave it be. –Fredddie™ 04:39, 5 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_2_in_Vermont&oldid=1205805890"