Talk:Hahn

Worth mentioning because it's used by RyanAir et al. Someone with more knowledge about the place should write up some information on connections to/from major cities. -- Nils

VFD discussion

Hahn

• Delete - An airfield. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
• Keep, although it needs to be formatted properly. It's 100 km away from Frankfurt and features hotels etc, so it's a sleepable destination. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
• Keep. I suppose technically it's an article for the village of Hahn, which just happens to have a commercial airport which is the main focus of the article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:21, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
• Keep as Hahn (the village with an airfield) (WT-en) WindHorse 09:39, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
• Keep - for reasons above. I've added a city template and moved the airfield info into the Get In section, as a start. (WT-en) WTDuck2 10:46, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Convert to airport article

I think that the town of Hahn itself is of little interest to the traveller, whereas the airport does matter if only for being incorrectly named after Frankfurt and thus misleading travellers. The article about the town looks a little like that article on Newton's birth town, that was written as a a biography of him because the makers of the encyclopedia it was in didn't allow articles about people per seHobbitschuster (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Difficult one to answer. I agree that there is little reason to go to Hahn except for the airport and that the airport totally dominates the village. The problem I see is that some will argue it is not a huge airport and does not fit the criteria of an airport article in that it does not have connecting flights. The airport is mainly used to get to Germany from other European countries or get to tourist destinations in Europe. I do think it nevertheless deserve to be an airport article as it is a very popular route for tourists (particularly using low-cost airlines) either going on holiday from Germany or for backpackers going from one country to another within Europe. It is a good airport for getting in and out of Germany. Facilities at the airport have increased in the last few years and it definitely needs advice in how to get to and from Hahn to major cites in Germany. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is anything but a good airport for travelling, it's in the middle of nowhere. I would keep it all as it is and simply expand this article. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle of nowhere is actually very good if you are driving a car (own or hired). The road from the A61, a good autobahn for West side of Germany, is now a dual carriageway. Unlike Frankfurt there is very little risk of traffic jams, making timing to get there easier to predict. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we would have to change this article for the simple reason that (as it is now) it follows the letter but not the spirit of the law. Someone decided (from the looks of it on the other site before the great recession hit the US economy) that "Hahn" doesn't qualify as a huge airport and therefore we need no article on it. That is a policy that was thought of and based upon the model of the USA where every hamlet has an airport. However, the ROW (rest of world) has less airports and people are not that used to air travel there, therefore a higher percentage of airports should be covered by airport articles and we might reconsider the definition of "huge". Either way, as it stands now the article is clearly some sort of trick play like having 11 eligible receivers on 4th down due to a comma error in the rulebook or something. Either we make it a real city article with a normal sized get in section (and actual stuff to put in the other sections) which I doubt we can given that it is in the middle of nowhere, or we go ahead and convert it into an airport article. My justification for it would be that the German WV has one and travellers shouldn't lack information that's relevant to them just because the policies in the language they speak are different. The only other alternative I fear would be to delete this article as a violation of policy, which I would find ridiculous. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Hobbitschuster that we should determine if the traveler can be practically helped by changing this into an Airport article. I would also agree that the WV position on airport articles should probably evolve from the 'biggest' airports to start addressing the 'significant' airports, regardless of overall passenger numbers.

Regarding Hahn, it is an important gateway into Germany used by LCC's and he village of Hahn is definitely not served by having so much airport detail. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So should we debate the ploicy-ish issue that arose concerning which airports should get an article at another place? And regarding the article: How should we proceed? keep a "city" article on Hahn? Convert this one to an airport article? Or do something else entirely?Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think policy should be discussed Wikivoyage_talk:Airport_Expedition . Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)