Talk:Waterworld

message: "The concept of a map showing the location of dry land is nonsensical given the literal lack of landmarks (unless it were a star / sun map)."
Still don't see how a star/sun map would work when it's impossible to determine your longitude. Lee M 01:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, although knowing the latitude of the site would take a lot of the guesswork out of it, it would then be a 'simple' matter of cicumnavigating the globe at that latitude! I agree though - the whole film is a pile of pants. Mark Richards 15:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "pile of pants" here is just the notion that melting the ice caps would cover almost all of the land with water.  Do a little arithmetic. The icecaps cover less than 10% of the surface.  If they rise and average of 1000 feet above sea level then melting them should represent less than 100 feet of sea level increase.  How much land is more than 100 feet above sea level?  How much of the ice caps are 1000 feet above sea level?  (I realize this is a simplistic line of reasoning, but keep in mind that ice is less compact than water due to differences in atomic densities in a cubic/crystal lattice vs. the amorphous liquid form.  So I'm being conservative in claiming that every ten inches of ice above sea level might result in one inch of sea level rise; it's easy to see that even if the ice caps where a mile high all the way across we'd only get 500 feet of sea rise --- significant but not the end of land on earth unless this was somehow accompanied by massive global erosion to wash the land into the oceans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimD (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2004  (UTC)
Erm. Yes. I don't think the movie bears too much analysis on any front. Isn't there a page somewhere that tracks movies by how true they are to real physics? Mark Richards 19:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say the movie is complete pants...if you don't try to analyse it too closely it's quite entertaining. Maybe one pant? Lee M 01:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Regarding the 'erosion' line of logic: I once read a really badly written science fiction book called Omega: The Last Days of the World, in which it was speculated that the world would wind up completely flat eventually, thanks to erosion. This was, of course, before they discovered continental drift, but maybe if the water level was higher it might well happen. Of course, it would take millions of years, and since the movie features on oil tanker, I don't think millions of years have passed. Unless they found a really good rustproofing process before the world ended. -Litefantastic 18:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a block of ice, drop it in a tub, then let the ice melt, it wouldn't effect the level of water.  That's the ice over water, what about the ice over land?  That ice on land presses on the continental plates which deforms, it's basically the same effect which is zero effect.  It would be like placing a block of ice on a paper boat, if you melt the ice, again the water level in the bathtub doesn't change.  I like the movie, thought it was great; pretend a big ice asteroid 500 miles across grazed earth's atmosphere and it rained for year.98.165.15.98 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Logic

message: The sidebar entry "Starring" lists 15 people; surely they aren't all "stars" of the movie.  Far down on the page, the "Cast" is only 7 people.  I think that's clearly backwards, and the "Cast" list should be moved up to "Starring" while the current "Starring" list moved down under "Cast" (and expanded, as it is surely incomplete; there were way more than 15 people with speaking roles in the movie). Aumakua 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformat?

message: In the article trivia:
"The character Enola is named after the Enola Gay, the American B-29 Superfortress bomber airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945."
I watched the movie, but I missed the connection. Can anyone explain this for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffersonRyan (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2006  (UTC)
I don't understand that either, as the Enola Gay was named for the pilot's mother. Seems more like opinion than fact. --198.53.165.84 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Enola = alone backwards, it's a hint that she's an orphan. Valerius Myotis 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-29 reference 

message: As it stands, the top paragraph gives conflicting data on the box office take. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rothul (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 June 2006  (UTC)
It sure does:With a budget of $175 million, the film only grossed a meager $88 million ... In 2005 dollars, (USD), the budget for the movie was $229 million, and grossed $115.3 million at the U.S. box office and $229.9 million at the foreign box office, making a profit of more than $115 million.[1] PrometheusX303 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing / did not turn a profit at the Box office 

message: I'm not sure why this box was added to the "Notes" section, as there is no mention of it on this talk page, but after a review of this section, nearly all the information seems quite accurate to me. The only item which I think requires citation is the claim that Enola's name comes from the Enola Gay, so I'm removing it until someone can give some evidence. Also, I suppose the claim that the amount of ammunition used by the Quadmount gun is unrealistic should have some source cited as well, but I won't remove it for now.
Aside from these two issues, this section does not seem to have any signifigant factuality problems (although I would question the premise of a "Notes" section - surely much of htis information would be better suited in a section entitled "Inconsistencies", though I'm not sure where the rest of the information should go) so I'm removing this Messagebox unless someone can give some justification for it. --Walkersam 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Patently False" messagebox 

message: Added spolier warning after considering spolier guidelines on article detailing the same —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.180.218 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning added 

message: Hi, DiogenesNY. An excellent rewrite of my rewrite of the synopsis. I, myself, see no real problem with re-including the line (referring to the Mariner's mutation) "perhaps an example of the next stage of human evolution due to the new, environmental conditions which now prevail" some day.
When Gregor is talking to the Mariner about his gills whilst he's imprisoned in the cage at the atoll, he says to the Mariner that there will probably be "more of his kind" in the future. This suggests that some people in Waterworld (except, of course, the Deacon!) are aware of the possible processes of evolution on Homo Sapiens in generations to come. In other words, the Mariner isn't a "one-off" freak of nature; not simply a "mutant", but a bona-fide adaptation to a world without landmasses. Cheers!.
Gardener of Geda 11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it's Homo sapiens, not "Homo Sapiens".  Secondly, this isn't how evolution works, even remotely.  Organisms don't somehow analyze their surroundings and shapeshift accordingly.  It's whichever members of a gene pool are more likely to produce larger numbers of surviving, fertile offspring who in turn do the same that determines the course of evolution.  This is why with all thr adaptations that whales have to life in the ocean, not a single marine mammal has ever evolved gills.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis rewrite of 04:56, December 15, 2006 by DiogenesNY 

message: The first note states that: "The underwater city the Mariner shows Helen is actually Denver, Colorado (which, at an elevation of one mile, would not be jeopardized by melted polar ice caps as noted above)."
I don't see any reference to this above. 82.41.202.199 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During the "underwater city" scene you can see the ruins of a structure that to some people looks very reminiscient of the "Cash Register Building" (Wells Fargo Center) in Denver (and I would agree there, the arced top seems pretty telling). Furthermore, the same scene ends with the two protagonists ascending from their dive along a row of ski lift ruins leading up a hill (underwater), which should be another giveaway as to the general area. 91.33.246.142 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note regarding Denver 

message: got this picture from  a webiste.this is an authentic image of what would happen if all ice melted.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure these maps are legit, from the following statement in that website: "it has NOT been proven that human-caused global warming is occurring, and in fact there is substantial reason to reject such claims. The best explanation for the evidence is that whatever global warming trend exists is mostly the result of natural influences like variations in the climate system and variations in solar radiation."  Badagnani 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true Waterworld IMAGE 

message: I've marked this as dubious. 97% of the water on the surface of the Earth is seawater, only 3% is freshwater (ice, rivers, ground water, etc.). Since seawater is about 10 times too saline to drink safely, there's no way putting that freshwater into the sea would dilute it enough. I have no idea how much water vapour is in the atmosphere. If there's enough to dilute the sea ten-fold, that would be impressive, but I'd personally need to see some academic reference to support that. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section: dilution of the sea 

message: :Image:Waterworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Waterworld.jpg

message: I've moved the Implausibilities section here because it looks like all original research. I don't really see the purpose of pointing out implausibilities in a work of fiction. I've moved it to this talk page until reliable sources can be found for these statements. --Pixelface 08:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see something similar to this included in every article on a work of science fiction, as science fiction ostendibly differentiates itself from fantasy based on being hypothetically possible (whereas, by contrast, fantasy is presumed to be impossible, which I personally find offensive and insulting, but that's another issue altogether).  I'd like to at least see if we can't attempt to salvage this.  I think the first order of business should be to mark what needs reliable sources, and what is original research.  I've taken the liberty of adding  tags to statements that appear to be uncited research, and I've put sentences that definitely qualify as original research in bold.  If this is inappropriate, please revert.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plausible or not, it wouldn't change the fact that the arguments are original research without references. If the arguments are verifiable, then go ahead and try, but otherwise it has no place in Wikipedia. --76.214.199.83 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the majority of this "implausibility" is simply a falsehood.  Most cigarettes are already several months old by the time we buy them, and I've found cigarettes in my home that were very likely to be several years old, having been stuck under a piece of furniture, exposed to unpleasant conditions, and (obviously) outside the package; cigarettes thus treated might taste "musty" for the first drag or two, but the flavor has changed so little that one can still pretty easily identify the brand just by taste. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also point out here that there is nothing to indicate the Mariner's "gills" functioned the same way as fishes' gills, so the statement regarding the plausibility of "developing an entirely new respiratory system" is flawed from the start -- lengthening the eustachean tubes so that they actually connect from their starting point inside the ears all the way to the lungs rather than stopping in the throat and strengthening the lung tissue and muscle, enabling them to expand and contract underwater, would probably be sufficient to allow a mammal to continue breathing oxygen even while submerged in water.  I'm certainly not suggesting that we include such information, as this would be original research, but it demonstrates that even with a reference cited for the undoubted improbability of a mammal evolving gills, there's a POV issue, unless we can include a reference indicating that this would not require an "entirely new respiratory system", which we are unlikely to find.  However -- the character Gregor does express a view of evolution ("I'd be surprised if there weren't others, and if there aren't, there will be eventually", implying that natural selection somehow causes random members of the gene pool to spontaneously begin sprouting whatever features might possibly be beneficial in the environment, a la X-Men or Poke-E-Man) that is fundamentally wrong and demonstrates a decidely crackheaded understanding of evolutionary biology, something we can easily cite a reference for and also link to the Wikipedia page on evolution.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My third and final coment:  Neanderthals used to spread flower pedals over graves.  While Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was a cousin and not an ancestor of modern man, this could have been, or in times since become, an instinctive gesture that is more biological than cultural.  In any event, I doubt anyone would argue that making inferences about human behavior that take a POV on the nature versus nurture issue is something that this article should be aiming to do.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implausibilities section

message: *In the extended version, a plaque is shown to them at the end of the movie, revealing that they are standing at the top of Mount Everest. While it is  not possible for water levels to have risen so high, it is still plausible for the air there to be breathable. Air pressure at sea level does not noticeably change as sea level varies. Even an unrealistic rise in sea level of 5 miles would decrease sea level air pressure by only around 0.25%.
*The concept of a map showing the location of dry land would have been nonsensical, given the literal lack of landmarks. Instead, the tattoo references "dry land" via coordinates in latitude and longitude, written in some variant of Chinese (as Gregor was able to interpret it with a China Airlines route map, and plotted his route using a sextant).
*Everyone on the tanker smokes, and cigarettes are considered a very valuable commodity. The presence of cigarettes in this setting is, however, extremely implausible, as most cigarettes have a shelf life of no longer than a few months, which would not be enough time for Earth's surviving population to forget that dry land ever existed.
::I think the majority of this "implausibility" is simply a falsehood.  Most cigarettes are already several months old by the time we buy them, and I've found cigarettes in my home that were very likely to be several years old, having been stuck under a piece of furniture, exposed to unpleasant conditions, and (obviously) outside the package; cigarettes thus treated might taste "musty" for the first drag or two, but the flavor has changed so little that one can still pretty easily identify the brand just by taste. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out here that there is nothing to indicate the Mariner's "gills" functioned the same way as fishes' gills, so the statement regarding the plausibility of "developing an entirely new respiratory system" is flawed from the start -- lengthening the eustachean tubes so that they actually connect from their starting point inside the ears all the way to the lungs rather than stopping in the throat and strengthening the lung tissue and muscle, enabling them to expand and contract underwater, would probably be sufficient to allow a mammal to continue breathing oxygen even while submerged in water.  I'm certainly not suggesting that we include such information, as this would be original research, but it demonstrates that even with a reference cited for the undoubted improbability of a mammal evolving gills, there's a POV issue, unless we can include a reference indicating that this would not require an "entirely new respiratory system", which we are unlikely to find.  However -- the character Gregor does express a view of evolution ("I'd be surprised if there weren't others, and if there aren't, there will be eventually", implying that natural selection somehow causes random members of the gene pool to spontaneously begin sprouting whatever features might possibly be beneficial in the environment, a la X-Men or Poke-E-Man) that is fundamentally wrong and demonstrates a decidely crackheaded understanding of evolutionary biology, something we can easily cite a reference for and also link to the Wikipedia page on evolution.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My third and final coment:  Neanderthals used to spread flower pedals over graves.  While Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was a cousin and not an ancestor of modern man, this could have been, or in times since become, an instinctive gesture that is more biological than cultural.  In any event, I doubt anyone would argue that making inferences about human behavior that take a POV on the nature versus nurture issue is something that this article should be aiming to do.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implausibilities

message: At some 1600 words, the plot summary was incredibly long and rambling.  I'v replaced it with a shorter version adapted from this older revision. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Although it would appear that the film made its budget back with its overseas takings, this is actually not true as a film needs to make three times its budget back to be considered a hit. This is because theatres take almost half of the film's gross and then there are marketing and distribution costs as well as immediate inflation costs to be considered. If Waterworld was made for $175m and grossed a total of $264m, that means that Universal would still not have recouped their investment. Therefore, the film was a box office flop.79.66.87.237 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No valid source that says that, but plenty to say it was a flop. 88.104.17.66 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Box Office flop

message: Considering how big of a story this movie was (because of its enormous budget,back when it opened) it deserves a more in-depth article. Also, the cast section offers nothing new. I included an expansion tab. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: Why isn't quoted "The Incredible Tide" by Alexander Hill Key, published in 1970s? Check it out on wikipedia. A notorious Anime was taken from it: Myiazaki's Future Boy Conan. 82.184.39.201 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "Key" Inspiration 

message: "The atollers, fearful of him, vote to "recycle" him by drowning him in a yellow sludge-like brine pool."
:How would they be able to drown him if he has gills?--80.141.244.60 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The brine pool is not a "yellow sludge brine pool they maintain for composting". It is where they are building new land.  All waste - including dead people - goes into it.  It is not for compost!203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The brine pool 

message: I just do not understand, and am shocked, shocked that criticism and comments have been made here that call into question the plausability or hypothetical accuracy of a Hollywood movie. Does anyone seriously believe that the things that happen in a Hollywood movie especially one with lots of special effects couln't really happen. Oh come on, next you're going to try to tell me that an oversize giant gorilla couln't climb exterior of the Empire State building and bat airplanes out of the sky. I need to be told these things boys and girls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.107.246 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implausability/inaccuracy 

message: Was this film inspired at all by the aquatic ape hypothesis?  -Kylelovesyou (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquatic Ape Theory

message: For some reason this article stated that atollls are a type of island that no longer exists. I deleted it. The entire country of the Maldives is made of atolls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.43 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atolls 

message: Black Death is the brand of Vodka the smokers have, not the brand of Cigarettes. I'll try to remedy the section best I can though. Aryeonos71.94.63.105 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Death Vodka, not Cigs 

message: The article mentions that an extended cut of the film is on Netflix but I did not find the film on Netflix at all.  Maybe the Netflix reference should be removed. Dsyn22 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Several problems here. Yes, it is available on Netflix. It is not available to stream on Netflix, but the DVD is available on Netflix. Yeah, if the edited version is the only one available on DVD, that will be the one available there. (That's how DVD rental works. Kinda like how the edited version is the only one available at Jimmie's DVD Hut in downtown Palookaville.) However, there are no sources discussing this or the laundry list of differences someone noticed. If it's meaningful, reliable sources will have discussed it. We don't have any at the moment. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie not avaiable on Netflix as of 2/20/12 

message: Just a bit of trivia. The tattoo map is written in Chinese (with a single Japanese character). Translated it gives the coordinates 86° 56' Latitude 27° 59' Longitude with no compass points. These coordinates are either in the Arctic Ocean or in the Southern Ocean depending on which compass points used, all four possible locations are around 6,000km from Mt Everest. The coordinates of Mount Everest are actually 27° 59'N Latitude 86° 56'E Longitude. Wayne (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tattoo 

message: The movie is advertising the ultimate in Global Warming scare.  The idea portrayed by Hollywood with this movie is that the end result of Global Warming is the melting of the Polar Ice Caps with enough water to cover the entire mountain ranges on earth.  
I view this movie as a Comedy, and very fun to watch.  One cannot get mad at the movie on scientific terms, after all this is Hollywood!  Kevin Costner and all his ilk live in a Looney Left-Wing fringe where some of them actually take this Global Warming issue to the ultimate FANTASY extreme.  This is not Science Fiction!  This is a Comedy/Fantasy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Easeltine. Thanks for your comments, but we are supposed to use the talk page of Wikipedia articles to discuss improving the contents. You can see the guidelines at WP:NOTAFORUM. There are a lot of other places where one can discuss this film and other films, such as IMDb. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments also fall under original research I'm afraid, so aren't applicable either.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: The article makes numerous references to "dirt".  What is meant is of course soil. I suggest that the ambiguous Americanism "dirt" be changed to the more correct "soil".203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that in the movie, it is continuously referred to as "dirt", not "soil". I don't think the word "soil" was ever mentioned in the movie. Besides, Americanisms are acceptable in an article about an American movie--Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 17:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree if the term is ambiguous, as it definitely is here. When I read "to trade dirt", I at first assumed the Costner character was selling either porn or compromising information on someone! Perhaps the word "dirt" should be in quotes, to make clear this is how it was termed in the film. In any case, without the link to the "Soil" article, it would surely be misunderstood by most non-American readers (not everyone follows up links, especially with words whose meaning appears to be clear). I'd likewise remove any ambiguous Britishisms (such as "chemist" for "pharmacist", or "rubber" for "eraser") from Wikipedia articles.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil not dirt 

message: I think this is it http://i.imgur.com/2KJ1Yh8h.jpg - prop mock up?  Maybe something about it could be in the article. Huge prop.
86.139.150.100 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real oil tanker or mock-up 

message: “Leading the raid is ‘the Deacon’, captain of a derelict oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, and the overall leader of the Smokers. They are known as such due to the crude fuel they create, using oil from the tanker to power their machines.”
Is this certain?  I thought they were called smokers because there had been a huge cache of cigarettes aboard the Exxon Valdez and everyone aboard were chain smokers, even the kids.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Smokers’ name 

message: The last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro section is a bit poorly worded
"The film's release was accompanied by a tie-in novel, video game, and three themed attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Singapore, and Universal Studios Japan called Waterworld: A Live Sea War Spectacular, which are all still running as of 2015."
While the film's release brought about the themed attractions, accompanied implies that they were introduced at a similar time as the movie, but Universal Studios Singapore and Universal Studios Japan did not exist at the time.
180.232.68.82 (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Studios 

message: Is there any source for the claim that the SNES release was only available in UK and Australia?
I had a copy of that game in Germany, with a German-language manual but English-language in-game text (as was very common for a lot of games at that time). --Skyrock84 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We apparently have an article on the game.  It's not well-sourced, though.  IGN has a Water World game indexed that was released in AU, JP, UK, and US: link.  It looks like this is probably the video game mentioned in the article, but it's not easy to tell without some kind of summary that says "based on the Kevin Costner film". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games 

message: What exactly is "mostly mixed" supposed to mean here - were some reviews NOT mixed?  "Mixed" can surely only refer to the reviews as a whole (i.e. they weren't mostly positive or mostly negative), not to each review taken individually. Or is "mixed" perhaps being used here - wrongly - as a euphemism for "bad"? I think "mostly" should simply be deleted.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mostly mixed" reviews 

message: I have hidden the broken tl until we can get it resolved.
I have also left out the original cn, as a ref has been provided, it just cannot be displayed yet as it is a broken template (or at least, appears to be!) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Cite media tl

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :PortuGreek. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#PortuGreek until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PortuGreek" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Article intro and plot body give different figures about how much the sea has risen, which is it? 199.7.159.31 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed a few months ago without any reason given. It was consistent before the change so I have reverted the edit back to what it was.  Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about sea level rise 

message: The plot section states that Dryland "is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest," but that detail was cut from the final version of the film. Would it be more informative to say something like " which is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest in the extended version"? Friendsfreak0 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everest twist not mentioned in the final cut