Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 8 November 2015

Books Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Latter Day Saint movement Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RLDS book

The 1911 book of the same title by an RLDS author was highly popular to their membership in its day, perhaps as popular as the LDS book in its time. I may be able to find a reference for that. Obviously the source scripture in 2 Nephi, as well as Isaiah was well known to both churches and there is no reason to think that Richards knew of the RLDS book. I merely wanted to point out the priority of the RLDS book. Blainster (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since they are different books with no apparent connection (other than using the same scriptural reference as the title), I'm not sure that the RLDS book even needs to be mentioned in this article. If there is some source that says Richards poached the title of the RLDS book for his own book, or was influenced to write his by the existence of the RLDS one, etc., then it would be worth mentioning. If the RLDS book is notable in its own right, then it would appear as a separate article. (For instance, if there are two albums by musical artists with the same name, we don't mention that fact in the article of one album or the other—it's just a naming coincidence and nothing else.) Good Ol’factory 04:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I came to the article looking for one book and found the other. Others may have the same experience, and the info should be available for that reason. I don't think it detracts in the present form, and it's not that much different from a hat note. I am reading the MacGregor book and when I can get enough info together, an article can be created and the info moved. Blainster (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If the book is independently notable, it should have an article and there should be a hatnote on this page. Otherwise (ie, if the book is not notable), the info. doesn't really belong on Misplaced Pages at all. The one situation that's not really that appropriate is how it is now—an article page (which this is) is not the same thing as a disambiguation page (which adding other meanings makes it). Good Ol’factory 08:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt we can find a ref to support the MacGregor book's significance to the early 20th century RLDS church. The only reason the title of the article serves the Richards book better, is the size of its potential audience, which may be sufficient grounds. The basis of earlier publication favors the MacGregor book. Without intending to be Wiki-lawyering, WP:BK states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The shared scripture and restoration movement are two elements in common. In that respect, the subjects are not entirely independent. That said, if you feel the addition offends your conception of WP, enough to remove it, I will not revert. It would be no problem to add a hatnote to point to a different article with a parenthetic qualifier in the title. Blainster (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it offends me in any way, I just find it quite unusual and can't remember seeing a comparable situation like this anywhere before. The guideline sounds like it can be done, though, given the degree of connection here, so I've no remaining objection to it remaining for the time being. Thanks for pointing out that guideline to me. (If separate articles were to exist, based on sales comparisons and number in print, I would suggest that the Richards book is probably the primary meaning. I'm not convinced that earlier publication under the title would be enough for the McGregor book to take precedence to the name on Misplaced Pages; after all, the title is not original and is essentially a quote from the Book of Isaiah in KJV.) Good Ol’factory 08:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Trademark Violations of the words "Marvelous Work and a Wonder"

Note:

The term "Marvelous Work and a Wonder" has been officially and legally trademarked. It cannot be used, in any form, except by permission of the owner.

Any further use, in any form, by Misplaced Pages, will be subject to a relief claim in an United States court. However,

I would not object to the mention of other previous books with that title, IF Misplaced Pages allows the noted Trademark® and mention of the books legally published under said mark. CMN

• Stub-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Stub-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Low-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles