I propose that Pawnee, Kansas be merged into First Territorial Capitol of Kansas. Both articles are extremely short and in need of citation improvements. They share much of the same information, and I see no reason they couldn't be in the same article. I feel it makes more sense for this to be the destination page, since the town of Pawnee cannot even be found on a map, while the capitol itself is a National Historic Site today. Please reply to this section with  • Support or  • Oppose, followed by your reasoning (optional, but helpful in reaching consensus). I will close this discussion by April 22 if no feedback is received or consensus is reached, as both of these pages have been infrequently edited. RM2KX (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because the town of Pawnee no longer exists, but is a part of the history of the territorial capitol building. RM2KX (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nom dm (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely NO. 1) An article can be about a ghost town, even if no buildings exist, so the point about it not currently existing is an invalid reason. 2) Most ghost towns and unincorporated communities are NOT on maps, mainly to thin down the amount of text of modern printed maps, so this isn't a valid reason either, also it does exist on a 1909 map. 3) Both exist in GNIS database, Pawnee and Territorial Capitol, so this is enough to keep both articles. 4) Even if article improvement is the only valid reason, it still isn't enough to force a merger. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NO, I agree as above.Jllm06 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NO Pawnee, Kansas is listed in the GNIS database as a separate location and ghost town are also listed in the GNIS database; Wikipedia also served as a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Don't merge per comments below. -----I am a BIG fan of historical ghost towns and locations, as well as historical buildings. One article is a stub, and the other a low class start listed as a stub. This short stub will likely not be expanded so will be a career stub, or dictionary entry. We merge for many reasons and this would be one since the "historical capital" is the town and what is listed as the First Territorial Capitol of Kansas was, and is, only a building. Put the two together to at least make a well referenced and better start-class article. Note: A problem overlooked is a conflict. This article First Territorial Capitol of Kansas states that Pawnee served as capital city of the Kansas Territory for five days. The article Pawnee, Kansas states Pawnee was the territorial capital for exactly four days., so was it "exactly four days" or "five days". I would think this would seem a far more important piece of information than that worrying about a merge that a redirect can point to. Otr500 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just reconciled the two pages. Four is correct, per multiple sources I've found. I had corrected Pawnee last night. RM2KX (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By no means would any info be deleted in a merge, and both topics would still be easily searchable in Wikipedia. I'm only suggesting a better article that doesn't unnecessarily send readers to another page. The option exists, though, to merge the other direction (the building into the town), since as Sbmeirow says, both ARE GNIS-listed (the only reason I originally suggested to merge this direction), and that actually seems more logical (a building is a part of a town). But no, nothing will be forced here without general consensus. Thanks for the feedback so far. RM2KX (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My #1 complaint is changing either article into a redirect. Both are in GNIS, one it was a community (which means it can stay) and the other is a historical site (which means it can stay). Since both are notable by default, this merger+redirect voting thing needs to be halted ASAP. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine by me to shorten the text in the Pawnee article and moving most text to the capitol article, then adding a "Main" template in the history section of the Pawnee article to point at the capitol article. The Pawnee history section should mainly target the history of the community and less about the capitol, and on the other hand the Capitol article should be the opposite, mainly about the Capitol and less about the community. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since "GNIS-listed" was brought up more than once, especially with "Since both are notable by default", and the addition of "Wikipedia also served as a gazetteer.", in case new(er) editors are here or happen upon this, I will respond:

There is no automatically guaranteed or actual default notability on Wikipedia. Articles have a criteria to adhere to and exist at the pleasure of consensus.

There are Minnesota ditches, listed on the GNIS as canals, and some are historically over 100 years old, that join approximately two million other entries. While there may be some "ditches" (I didn't look) that might possibly deserve an article, they are just diversion ditches. Louisiana has "thousands" of real canals many named, and many likely listed on the GNIS. A problem is that these would only make a dictionary entry on Wikipedia. The same with with river source (head) or mouth GNIS listings.

That actually has nothing to do with a better referenced historical stubs or ghost town stubs, just rebuttal comments. IF a subject is notable, regardless of a GNIS-listing (such a listing does help though), it would likely survive an AFD, but attempts at turning Wikipedia into a dictionary will likely hit a wall at some point. Local or project consensus will usually fail if at odds with broad community consensus or policies and guidelines. I have been looking to find content to add to both articles. Just being GNIS-listed is not a sole determining factor that an article should exist. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 29 Update: I have greatly expanded the Pawnee article today, and there is enough information to still expand the Capitol article a little, so possibly neither will be stub thereafter (the Capitol article will probably remain C-class at best). Please update any of your votes if your opinion changes. RM2KX (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Changed support to Don't merge: Thank you. Did I mention I was a "BIG fan of historical ghost towns and locations, as well as historical buildings"? Actually pretty much all things "history". I just don't want some "artificial mandate" to cause articles to suffer, and I detest permanent dictionary articles in an encyclopedia, as there are places for those. @ RM2KX, I suppose you have intentions of changing your !vote also correct? Otr500 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking that way! Obviously I'm expanding the heck out of Pawnee, but until a couple of days ago I still wasn't finding much about the capitol building itself. Now I have three additional sources to put a little muscle into that article too, so I think it will stay put. I'll close this discussion when I'm "finished" (haha) editing both articles, which won't be much longer. Unless twenty people come here and say to merge anyway. (haha) RM2KX (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]