Talk:Marie Celeste

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Ships

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

This subject should have its own article; it needs more than a redirect.

Tell me why the alteration is not constructive. As explained, there is a widespread and erroneous belief that the real ship was called Marie Celeste. See the Talk page for the explanation. My alteration explains how the confusion arose and is more useful to someone who has searched for "Marie Celeste" than a simple redirect. Someone who has done that and finds himself on the Mary Celeste page might come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has made a mistake. If explaining the source of the confusion is unconstructive, then we live in a strange world. I'll just pop this onto the article Talk page so we might get a second opinion or consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.113.235 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Thing is there is a article already on Marie Celeste-if you wanted you could go to the talk page of Mary Celeste and ask for the name change instead of changing the redirect like that as they are the same page. Wgolf (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)"

Thing is: there isn't a (sic) article already on Marie Celeste; there is just a redirect to "Mary Celeste." Have you tried it? They are, indeed, the same page, but shouldn't be. That's the whole point of the alteration. The link to Marie Celeste that you have provided goes to Mary Celeste. One is a fictional ship, the other is a real one. Do you follow what's happening here? If someone who, as many people in the world outside Wikipedia do, believes firmly that there was a real ship called Marie Celeste, and googles it, he or she will find him or herself on the Wikipedia page called "Mary Celeste." He or she might not understand why, especially as it is not until a very long way down the article that Conan Doyle's introduction of the ambiguity is explained. The alteration I made will take people to a page entitled "Marie Celeste" where they will be disabused and then directed to the page entitled "Mary Celeste." A small note at the top of the Mary Celeste page will also be helpful for those who arrive there by a different route. Why would you not want people to be able to do those things?IIRC I was invited to discuss the matter here. I shall, therefore, keep it here.Could I ask you once again to just explain why my alteration is not constructive? That's all; why it is not constructive.— Preceding unsigned comment

This is a separate subject, not a misspelling.

I am removing this template, because this is not a simple matter of an alternat(iv)e spelling. It's a separate topic. Marie Celeste is not a misspelling of Mary Celeste.* Marie Celeste is the name of a ship in a work of fiction. It is based on a real event involving a ship called Mary Celeste. The author changed the name when writing the story, and the change has caused confusion to the extent that many people believe Marie Celeste to be the name of the real vessel. It's not a misspelling; it's a misunderstanding. I am going to clear up this misunderstanding for the benefit of people who come to Wikipedia looking for information. I would advise anyone who disagrees to read the several explanations in on this talk page and on the Mary Celeste article talk page. Hengistmate (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification: It actually is a spelling mistake - by Conan Doyle, 130 years ago. For Wikipedia's purposes, it is not a spelling mistake. Hengistmate (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is now as it should be.

Redirecting to "Mary Celeste" is like redirecting Billie Whitelaw to Willie Whitelaw. A different spelling and also a different thing. Hengistmate (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except that it could use some expansion. Please understand that I have no stake in the debate about whether this title should be an article or should redirect to Mary Celeste. This title was on the backlog list of articles that needed to be reviewed. When I came to it, this title was a redirect, so I tagged it with category templates, checked it as "reviewed" and moved on. I have no problem with this title having its own article, as it sounds notable enough; however, if it's not soon expanded, then you can expect someone to come along and either slap a deletion template on it or once again redirect it. I will mark it "unreviewed" to give it another chance. Pleasant pathways, Painius 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I have merged the information from this article back into the short story article as there is no advantage in having two stubs instead of one. Making this page a disambiguation will prevent people accidentally linking to the fictional ship. jnestorius^(talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the work of fiction

Sounds like this page was already a redirect in the past, but to the wrong article. It seems more logical to me for it to point the reader strictly to the Marie one, i.e. to redirect to the work of fiction, adding appropriate hatnotes to both Mary Celeste and J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement to clarify the ambiguous spelling of Mary/Marie. This would remove the need for this rather pointless disambiguation page that links to just two articles. Refer to my edits to see what I mean. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]