true but having the word underwater repeatedly altered to undersea isn't necessary when changing a description on the direct references to the name it self need be altered. Well, that's my opinion because underwater is a valid description for undersea.
Well, undersea is more specific than underwater. It's true that the changes in chronology and description weren't really mandatory, since we could just write it off as using a descriptive phrase instead of a name reference. But the problem is that "Underwater Temple" was capitalised, which implies that it's a name. If it was "underwater temple", then it really wouldn't have made much difference.