Talk:Post Cretaceous Coelacanth fossils

This redirect is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles

Palaeontology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles

Post KPG Coelacanth fossils

Is this okay?

Is this good?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this article, is okay, but my god filled with grammar mistakes, but I can help. I was researching this stuff and wanted to join Wikipedia, so when I found you page, I liked you effort. --Iswunderbar (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not just part of the coelacanth article? As far as I can see, all the info belongs in the "Fossil record" section of that article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was my assessment as well, and actually my recommendation to Bubblesorg when they asked. There's not really enough content here to merit a standalone article (and I would remove some of the sources and statements in the process, particularly the creationist-related bits). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well yeah, I think its time to redirect this to Celocanth, unless someone wants to make a celocanth fossil record article, but that is a bit strange.The creationist part comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apokryltaros who told me that, we could still have this as a seperete page, but, we would need more. So yeah merge, as the cretor im very much okay with that, or add more--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned the creationist to point out that the references you were using in hopes to justify the Miocene coelacanth were UNRELIABLE.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Support there's not enough content available for a split User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pointless content fork better discussed over in the coelacanth article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]