This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to
Chicago or the
Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Wether you people like or dislike the movie is not relevant. this is not a forum. --
Imladros (
talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair use rationale for Image:Relic ver1.jpg
Image:Relic ver1.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.
The lead contains the following: This Peter Hyams-directed feature is based on the best selling novel of the same name and Reliquary which was released in 1998, by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. If the film is from 1997, how is it based on a book that wasn't published until 1998? The claim has been in the article a long time. Is it vandalism or just poorly worded? Not having read the books, I don't know what to make of the seeming contradiction. -
Phoenixrod (
talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rilquary was the sequel to Relic which the movie is based. Relic (the book) was published in 1995 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.1.196.199 (
talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Image copyright problem with Image:The Relic cover.jpg
The image
Image:The Relic cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of
fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the
requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an
explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a
non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Considering this is a rather old-fashioned monster movie, could the Blaisdales' name be a reference to 1950s monster effects creator
Paul Blaisdell? --
Imladros (
talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Requested move 8 May 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inclined to oppose after looking at
Relic (disambiguation). In Gbooks the 1997 horror film does not demonstrate long term encyclopaedic significance over all other topics combined.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 11:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Please note that this is not comparing "all the other topics", only the ones named "The Relic", per
WP:SMALLDETAILS.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not convinced
WP:SMALLDETAILS applies here;
per ngrams, this capitalization was frequently used prior to the release of the horror film.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I can see the point that
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ is making and I am inclined to lean towards weakly supporting, on the basis that there are very few topics specifically prefixed with "the" before "relic" and of those, the film is a clear PT. I think, given the relative high readership of the film article, then there is a case to make it the PT as proposed with an "other uses/meanings" hatnote to the DAB page.
The Relic is now only a redirect anyway so it isn't affecting anything else if it's instead shifted to a clear hatnote. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose: Something else with the title "The Relic" could happen later on.
BattleshipMan (
talk) 01:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No primary topic. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom’s evidence of primary topic for “The Relic” which is not even addressed (much less refuted) by any of the opposition which should therefore be discounted accordingly. I’m so tired of this kind of disruptive blatant JDLI arguing. It must not be rewarded. —
В²C☎ 07:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and
User:Born2cycle. "Something else with the title 'The Relic' could happen later on." is a bit weak; the nominator's evidence should be addressed. —
AjaxSmack 02:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.