Talk:Hahn, Texas

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

unneeded info on this page[edit]

I made an edit here a few days ago to the geography section of this article, and another editor reverted it, virtually replacing everything I removed.

We are talking about a place that actually no longer exists, according to reliable sources. I am not saying this article should be deleted, far from it. Every place that is or was in the US can and should have an article here. My point is, how is the public any more informed by the pile of road directions that is now in the article than a simple statement that the community was at the intersection of FM 1160 and FM 2546? The rest of the tangle of this far from here and near that road and kinda by this creek only serves to inform the locals, which is not the purpose of this, or any other Wikipedia article. An intersection of two state highways is a pretty precise location.

If you want to add to this article, why not try to find historic populations, or possibly some info on something historic or even interesting that may have occurred there? To add info just to make the article larger, info that really adds nothing in the way of useful information about the place, is pointless. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I wrote the Hahn article. For some time, I've been writing articles about little communities that I can reach by car and take pictures. The edit to the Geography section that you mentioned removed information about local roads, nearby creeks, and the nearby cemetery which was featured in one of my photos. Only the GNIS coordinates were left. Since I believed that legitimately geographical data was removed, it was put back. However, it was correctly pointed out that the article was focused too much on the roads. So I rewrote it a little to make it more about Hahn and less about the roads (Hahn is x miles north of Louise on FM 1160, instead of blah-blah about FM 1160). As an example of a Geography section that discusses cemeteries, nearby communities and streams, please see Alsip, Illinois. I'm sure much of the information about Hahn (and other small places) may seem dull to anyone who has never lived there, though I find it interesting. I was uncertain whether Hahn was a ghost town and decided it was not (but I can be persuaded otherwise). It seems like this is really a disagreement about what is "useful information". I would say more; you believe less. I think historic locations deserve a geographical description, such as how to get there and what are the local features. If there are WP guidelines for writing articles about places (or ghost towns), please send me the link. I will do my best to comply. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The geography section looks mostly reasonable to me. Other good articles about smaller places often have similar geography sections which describe nearby roads, cities, and bodies of water; for instance, see Silver Reef, Utah, or Beatty, Nevada, or Basin, Montana. There are a few details which seem excessive, such as the stop sign configuration, but overall it seems fine to me. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a specific guideline for ghost towns, but the how to get there thing is covered by WP:NOTDIR, which in summation states that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Map directions are easily accessed by the map link provided by the coordinates template. You stated that the creeks are not "in" the former community, so other than for directions, why would you mention them? They would be more appropriately discussed in the article about the township or the county. Again, I will say that if you haven't anything that would be of interest to a wider audience than that area of Texas, don't you think it would be better to say less? Information on what used to be there, with references, would be a great addition. There may be census data for some times in the past. That would be valuable info. Wikipedia operates on donations, and to use up server space with information that does not inform (given that travel directions are against policy) is quite a waste. I have absolutely nothing against small communities. I absolutely believe that every place that is or was should have its own Wikipedia article. That article should, however, be filled with content that informs a worldwide audience and gives information that is useful beyond the local area. I am not sure the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities would apply, but they do have article guidelines that are quite often used for any settled place. Also, I might add that all the content about creeks and roads represents original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have asked a fellow editor, who has created over 2000 articles on small or extinct places, to take a look here and make what changes he sees as appropriate. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three articles The Catalyist mention do have a some similar content in the geography section. They also have extensive, quite extensive, as a matter of fact, additional well referenced content. To me this also says that so much emphasis on the various FM roads in the area is also WP:UNDUE, or to step away from Wikispeak, puts too much emphasis on the current geography VS the historical info. Adding extra, somewhat marginal info to one section is a lot less distracting in an article that already has a large amount of info in it. It still seems to me that this article is padded with info to make it bigger. BTW, cemeteries are much more of a history item than a geography item. Similarly, if you can make a historic tie to the creeks, they would be good content in the history section. But as simply waymarkers, creeks with nothing else being noted other than their existence do not belong in an article about a place they are near. They belong in the geographic subdivision they are actually in. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some great data pieces here, BUT we need to have a tad more organization. Example, the quad data is restated, a few times...As to the cemetery and the History section, Is there a reason why the cemetery is there for historic notability. Example, Famous person X died or was buried there? Also, there is a distinct POV here which is a no no. Most handbooks will relate to places in the ast tense, even if a place is populated, it can indeed be a ghost town. Let me know if you want examples. Also, a turn by turn set of directions, or on the left or right, overkill. HOWEVER, Wikitravel, could be a great place for that level of data...These are thoughts only, no impugnationsCoal town guy (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence including the stop sign stuff as per comment by TheCatalyst31. I mentioned the quad in the article and thought it was significant enough to put in the intro paragraph, since there are few other important features in Hahn. The cemetery was included because it's the only place where the name "Hahn" is used; there are no road signs. No one important is buried there that I know of. As far as the oil wells, there is no nearby oil field name though there are quite a few wells. Oil leases are a common feature in Wharton County, so there is nothing remarkable about this. Can you be more specific about my POV getting into the article? I would like to avoid that. Thanks for all the comments. Djmaschek (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much btter. Note the Handbook intro in the History section. As a note, most handbooks will relate to smaller communities in the past tense. This is usually, inmdicative of a former industry, probably oil, there are some great sources for oil towns in Texas which may have alot of data there about the town proper. However, a siggestion, do you think you could get an actual postmark from Hahn? Its possible, and if you want, talk to me on my talk page, ALOT of the WV places that are NOT well documented, had a post office and having their postmark really gives a shot in the arm as it were to the place being an actual entity etc etcCoal town guy (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hahn, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hahn,_Texas&oldid=1202540481"