Talk:Crack in the World

Fair use rationale for Image:Crack in the world.jpg

Image:Crack in the world.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chunk

I think the idea was that seawater poured into the crack and turned into super-heated steam at very high pressure, which was supposed to send the chunk (about 20,000 square miles surface area) hurtling skywards.(Cyberia3 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Science fiction

I've removed the following text from the lead:

While noted for its attempts at scientific accuracy, its premise—a crack in the solid crust of the Earth threatening life on it—was disproved by the conclusive proof of plate tectonics, announced in 1965.

Well the thing is it's science fiction. There is no information here supporting the statement on attempts at scientific accuracy, which I've removed. We don't even see who the science advisor was, if there was such a person. Nor do we see who the writer or writers were. Was it a rare venture into fiction by a great scientist? We don't know from this material. So until we've got some good reason to say this is something worth saying (and not just some puffery intended to sell tickets) we don't say it. --TS 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it clear that -- just because the upper crust of the planet isn't completely solid (i.e. plate tectonics) -- that somehow this would disprove the main point of the movie. Remember -- they weren't just drilling 10 or 20 miles deep. They wanted to go core-deep. Even with plate tectonics in play -- if you perforate the crust often enough and deep enough, bad things happen. You don't get an explosion, but bad things happen. Even if -- by gravity -- the parts stay together (and would eventually fuse back together hydro-statically) -- it would be mighty inconvenient to have a core-deep crack anywhere on earth. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]