Talk:Archipelago

Country of Australia

The continent of Australia includes part of New Guinea. However the country of Australia comprises 8048 islands, the largest of which is mainland Australia, then Tasmania, then Kangaroo island.

Why isn't the country of Australia considered to be an archipelago? 2406:3400:514:DAF0:F86B:D27:73C9:2F22 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, just as you have stated in your question, the country of Australia contains the continental mainland which forms the bulk of the continent of Australia. Furthermore, the Malay Archipelago is the world's largest archipelago, but it is much smaller than the country of Australia. If Australia is an archipelago, you might as well say the Americas is an archipelago too. 2001:8003:9078:2401:5CBA:C000:708F:3324 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Confusing "not to be confused with" statements could contribute to confusion quickly

Confused? Well I'll explain. For roughly the past 6 months, I've noticed a problematic (albeit, amusing) trend on many articles, including this one. Somebodies or perhaps somebots are creating unnecessary confusion in what would otherwise be the hallmark herms of navigation on Wikipedia - the not to be confused with notice. A normally benign, guiding feature intended for clearing up misunderstandings has, strangely, become a means of misdirection.

The Not to be confused with notice on the parent page, Archipelago, reads thusly:

Not to be confused with arpeggio or a capella.

This is…not the worst I've seen, but it feels like a joke, or defacement. Wikigrafitti, a sharpied out street sign scribbled over in slant rhyme. It is less a direction made in good faith, and more of a misdirection made, at best, mistakenly.

The confusion only arises when those words are presented in the order and position that they are, surely. So, where there was no confusion before, one might confuse them now. If it was just "arpeggio", I could overlook it, but the inclusion of the "a cappella" feels like a punchline. There are few similarities in "archipelago" and "a capella" without "arpeggio" as a bridge between.

If the logic is based on letter order/word form or number of shared letters, then the article for the Roman general Agrippa would serve just as well, if not more. They share the same number of matched letters, and seem vaguely similar-ish … if you squint. This is not really good enough reason to put it there though. That's kind of my point here, because this seems like it achieves an equivalent level of "clarity".

This problem is even more silly when you consider the location of the notice on the page itself: after the heading, it is the next thing you see. When used effectively, the logic of the layout is solid. When given to an an overeager algorithm or a compulsive editorial body, it becomes an odd design, as it could potentially be helpful. Or, just distracting.

Overall, the issue is not confined to the example on this page, and on its own isn't enough for me to write this out as I have. I only did because I have seen numerous others - but I did not catalogue them. (or, if I did, I saved many, many articles and do not have enough free time to hunt through them right now.) You, the reader, will have to decide if my words are merited based on only this short post, and your own experience.

Stated succintly, my perception of the issue is this:

The quantity of the subheadings in question has increased, quality has not. They are not necessary for inclusion on all articles. Inclusion should prevent, not invent the confusion! Many reasons can exist for notice of confusion, but if not obvious, there should be some anecdotal evidence before an addition is made. Because the notice's position in the layout is so prominent, it seems reasonable to reexamine any arbitrary alterations in future. Many examples may be seen which are of poor or malicious construction. Finally, any poorly-formed notices result in the perception of the overall utilty or reliability to decrease, and contribute to existing, well-formed notices becoming … unnoticed.

Though not as awful as others I've seen, the combined effect over time is a genuine trip through looking glass, and exactly how I imagine Wikipedia would work in Wonderland. Personally, I think they are a good feature, but they should not be seen as compulsory, and are not needed on all pages like the short article description. I don't have what I feel is an acceptable level of editorial knowledge to change this, and so, I offer these thoughts to others who might.

So long, and thanks for all the Wikifish. Iiviigames (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)