Talk:Post Cretaceous Coelacanth fossils

Post KPG Coelacanth fossils

Is this okay?

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Proposed merge

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