Talk:Structural basin

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should be renamed Structural basin, so then we'll have Sedimentary basin and Structural basin.Rolinator 09:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, done. Vsmith 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Now to actually add something to it...Rolinator 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2013. This article ("Structural Basins") should be deleted. The very title of the features described in the introductory text is not in mainstream use in geology, and the descriptions are contradictory and confusing. The (listed) examples are in fact a narrow range of depositional sedimentary basins sensu stricto (see the textbook by P.A. Allen & J.R. Allen "Basin Analysis", 1st or 2nd editions, 2005 Blackwell Publishing ISBN: 978-0-632-05207-3), dominated by flexural and cratonic ('sag') types. The article confuses tectonic (structural) deformation and basin-forming tectonic mechanisms. The topic would be better dealt with in the article on "Sedimentary Basins". The listed basins should be correctly classified according to type, and incorporated therein. Derrynas (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Unfortunately, the Sedimentary basin article is pretty opaque. I can't think offhand of any sed basins that aren't also structural.... ? Combine the two, maybe?? --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this short discussion, it does seem to me that combining the two pages would be more useful for the WP reader than having two separate articles dwelling on different aspects of what is for the most part a single topic. What do others think? cheersGeopersona (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename. The sentence "Because the strata dip toward the center, the exposed strata in a basin are progressively younger from the outside in, with the youngest rocks in the center." is difficult to follow for me as a non-specialist reader (I don't see why more erosion should occur in the middle of the depression). This article seems mostly to be a list of geological basins - renaming it to something like List of sedimentary basins and shifting any significant points present here, but absent from Sedimentary basin, to Sedimentary basin would make sense to me. Boud (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. It appears to be describing the pre-plate tectonics concept of a “geosyncline”, which already has its own article. As a structural geologist, I have not come across the term “structural basin”. I’ve had a quick look through some textbooks just to be sure and can’t find it. A basin is defined as a depression in the Earth’s crust in which sediments (including extrusive volcanic rocks) can accumulate. The article on sedimentary basins has been much updated and improved since the comment from 2013 (notably by RockDr) and covers the different mechanisms of basin formation, which include those that could be perceived as structural (eg due to faulting). Silica Cat (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten this article but don't merge If anything I'd suggest this article be shortened and improved as a simple definition of a not very widely used structural geology term.

I agree this page, Structural Basin, is problematic and I think it suffers from having tried to follow the concept of geologic provinces to some sort of conclusion but I think that led authors down a rabbit hole as that's not a very widespread use of the term basin; and the associated map that has been used to define categories of provinces is misleading and doesn't conform to the most widespread use of terminology. It appears to be from a geophysics, rather than geology perspective, with seismic refraction characteristics at a very large scale as its criteria.

Combining the articles would likely prove problematic too. I would think if one dug into it one would find that NOT all structural basins accumulate sediment and some structural basins are formed out of volcanic or other non-sedimentary rock, because the term should be seen as a structural geology term. Conversely only a small percentage of sedimentary basins (notable intracratonic sag basins) would likely qualify as structural basins.

I've substantially expanded and corrected the Sedimentary Basin article. I have a PhD in geology specifically in the discipline of sedimentary basin analysis and I scanned a couple textbooks and tried to cite classic references as I rewrote the Sedimentary Basin page. This map image is problematic and misleading there too though and I don't think belongs on that page at all, but I can't find a good public domain map of sedimentary basins. There are several published ones on the internet though. RockDr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map currently within the article is more likely to confuse the reader than to help them - see notes on image page explaining its resolution - no structural basins in western Europe at first glance! We might consider replacing it with something more illustrative of the content- unless a merge with sedimentary basin overtakes this point entirely. cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please I need a map with every basin in the US including the state name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.128.187 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]