Talk:Mississippi embayment

Untitled
Fluvial or alluvial? Or both? - Kbh3rd 18:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to argue over it, I'd put my vote in for "deltaic deposit" and make a redirect from that to river delta. ... ... Was the intent just to link to both the river delta page as well as the Mississippi River Delta page?  If so, would some other solution work, like making the Mississippi River Delta page have a more prominent link to river deltas, and an intro that spends more time describing the fluvial/alluvial/deltaic/sedimentary/etc/etc behavior of river deltas generally?  --Interiot 19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Or alluvium or alluvial deposit --Interiot

I don't quite understand the meaning of the word embayment in this context. Does it refer to the fact that during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, the area was part of the Gulf of Mexico ? If that is indeed the case, then it would be good to explain more about that, and attach this graphic to this article. (or whatever it means, I think this region is pretty important, so it would be good if someone could fill in between the lines so the article is more accessible to more people.) -Interiot 20:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Does it work better now? Vsmith 23:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes more sense. I'm still puzzled over why the area is eerily flat.  It is the exact same process as the Delta formation, except over hundreds of times longer timespan?  Or did fluvial erosion play a big part too (the east side of the embayment in Tennesee and Mississippi look like there's a ridge at the edge of the plain)?


 * See Crowley's Ridge. Vsmith 11:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... you said east side. OK almost ditto - the area around Memphis is a big pile of glacial loess as is Crowleys Ridge. So these ridges are a remnant of the ice ages and eolian deposition. At least that's my understanding - could be wrong though :-) Vsmith 11:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Geology is so cool (especially fluvial and glacial aspects). :)  --Interiot 15:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Too technical?
I'm tempted to remove the "too technical" tag added by a confused anonymous reader. Technical, yes. "Too" technical? I don't think so. &lt;joke&gt; If you disagree, maybe you should stick to something more your speed. &lt;/joke&gt; Seriously, let's discuss it here. -- Kbh3rd 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "Cretaceous to recent sediments" are most likely useful shorthand for those who have experience reading geology textbooks, but geological terminology is an impediment to those who don't have that experience, who just stumble here because this is a general encyclopedia. As the template says, technical terminology does not need to be removed, but explaining either there, or in a later paragraph, "river sediments dropped over the last 146 million years" instantly makes the article accessible to a vastly wider audience.  Other phrases that are somewhat tough to get through are "anomalous break in regional geologic structure", "tectonic basin", "failed continental rift", and "partially re-activated", particularly because there are no links for someone to read more to understand those topics if they wanted to. --67.163.7.156 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Title
The title is "Mississippi embayment", but it is described in the article as the "Mississippi Embayment". Is one of them incorrect? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia likes for article titles to start with upper case and continue in lower case unless the title is also a proper name. In this case, I'm inclined to think that "Mississippi Embayment" is the better choice.  Let's let the discussion continue.  If no one has a major objection, we can move the article to a new title ("Mississippi Embayment") and let the present title become a redirect page. (If we do that, only an administrator can move it back.) Cheers!  -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pangaea breakup
Section: Formation of the embayment - Second Para: "As Pangaea began to break up about 95 million years ago..."

The 95 MY value cited disagrees with other references such as Encyclopedia Britannica/Pangaea (200 Mya) and the UK Geological Society by Dr Ted Nield (Editor, Geoscientist) who states the breakup starting at 250 Mya.

So 95 Mya seems far too young. Comments? Astrophysicalchemist (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the commonly accepted timeframe is around 200 mya - even the Wiki article on Pangaea says as much. Perhaps it's a typo and was meant to read "195 million years ago"? Either way, I support changing it. Markthomasvia (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)