Talk:Coon Creek Formation

Coon Creek Beds of the Ripley Formation
At some point we need to change the title of this article to reflect the modern stratigraphy. I left "Coon Creek Formation" in the text for now. Wilson44691 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly and now would be a good time to do so. For the record, Coon Creek is NOT a geologicial formation-- not even a distinct "member" of the Ripley Formation( e.g McNairy Sand Fm). Coon Creek is just one of many locations from Missouri,Illinois to Georgia where the Ripley formation is exposed. Leaving this titled A "formation" is a gross error and represents a serious credibility issue amongst geologist and geo-science students. Recommend IMMEDIATE title change to Coon Creek Fossil Beds or words to that effect. All references to it being a geological formation need to be revised to show it is an "exposure" of the Ripley Formation which is a USGS recognized geological formation. There is some literature referring to the Coon Creek "Horizion" of the Ripley Fm but I am unable to research these issues presently as I am on travel. I used to work in the Ripley and Eutaw formations of Alabama and Georgia ergo my partial knowledgeMstreman (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Copying from another source
Is it a problem that much of the text here comes from an unpublished pdf available on this website? The website is listed in the article, although not as a source for the text. It could be that the authors of the pdf and this article are the same. What are the Wikipedia rules in a case like this? Wilson44691 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)