Talk:The Relic

Opinions

"The film itself is something else: a tightly knit action packed and extremely well acted summer blockbuster."

This just isn't true, the movie gets a 5.3 rating on imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120004/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9cmVsaWN8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=4;ft=22;fm=1

It isn't a very good movie. The article reads as a commercial.

I liked it. --Dangerous-Boy 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wether you people like or dislike the movie is not relevant. this is not a forum. -- Imladros (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

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)

I've changed the claim to 1997, per Reliquary (novel). -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference (?)

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)

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 13:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

---

The Relic (film) → The Relic – The film is the clear primary topic for "The Relic" by pageviews. The novel and game get very little. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Weak oppose: Something else with the title "The Relic" could happen later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @BattleshipMan: If we used that logic across wikipedia without knowing what may come later down the line then we'd never really create or build any articles "in case it needs changing in the future". If it does, then we can change it. We can only deal with the here and now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • "A bit weak" is generous, AjaxSmack (talk · contribs)! It's blatant contradiction of WP:CRYSTALBALL. --В²C ☎ 16:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Inaccuracies in Plot Summary

Comment deleted.