Template talk:Features and artificial objects on Mars

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Astronomy: Mars / Solar System This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy This template is supported by Mars task force. This template is supported by Solar System task force.

The 'roll-over' text for the landers has broken - can't figure out why though, it all looks fine... sbandrews (t) 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

sorted sbandrews (t) 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, I missed that. the wub "?!" 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

@Huntster and other editors: Recent discussion copied below seems relevant to this talk page - esp since the template display problem may be somewhat unresolved and ongoing at the moment - Comments and/or Experiences from editors welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Copied from "User talk:Drbogdan#Mars surface template":

Mars surface template

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Features_and_artificial_objects_on_Mars&diff=746448856&oldid=746414812, what browser are you using? I'm on Firefox v.46 and when I made that edit all alignments were precisely (I literally measured pixel by pixel) on the borders of the images. I wonder if our templates render differently in different browsers? That would be bad... — Huntster (t @ c) 14:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for your comments - yes - Browser type may be a concern - I usually use the latest version of Chrome on my dell wintel-xp & hp laptop wintel-xp (presently, Chrome-v49.0.2623.112 m; Firefox-v50.0b9; MSIE-v8.0.6001,18702 are installed on both) & dell wintel-10 pcs - the dell wintel-xp (& hp laptop wintel-xp) Chrome browser & MSIE browser seem *completely ok* with all alignments at the moment with the present configurations - however - on my dell wintel-xp Firefox browser, *only* the label on "Curiosity" seems misaligned: ie, overlaps the icon ~1-2px; all other labels seem *completely ok* on the Firefox browser - on my Toshiba tablet (android/v4.0.4-latest), three labels ("Viking-1" & "Schiaparelli" & "Curiosity") are misaligned: ie, all leave small 1-2px spaces left of the icons - hope this helps in some way - may try some of my other browsers/pcs later - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: UPDATE - similar results as above with the present configurations with all Browsers using my very latest pc (Dell xps 8900 desktop Intel core i7 - model x89002506blk; Windows 10 64-bit) with Chrome v53.0.2785.101 m (64-bit) & MSEdge v25.10586.0.0/MSEdgeHTML v13.10586 & Firefox v49.0.2 browsers installed - all labels are *completely ok* with the Chrome & MS browsers but there is one misaligned label with the Firefox browser ("Curiosity" label overlaps icon by 1-2px) - all other labels seem "completely ok" (ie, no other overlaps/no significant spaces) with the Firefox browser - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster:  Done - Possible Compromise Solution => "Curiosity" label - adj "left" to 407px (from 410px) - all alignments on the "Mars surface template" now seem sufficiently ok w/ Chrome v53, MSEdge v25/v13 and Firefox v49 browsers - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Welp, it's still all weird on my screen, but you know I appreciate your efforts to fix things. These display errors are very odd. Ah well. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Besides "browser type", other variables affecting label alignment in the template *may* be the following => "monitor type", "OS type", "screen size", "screen resolution" and "video card type" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the map has the wrong position for Schiaparelli relative to Opportunity. If I am not mistaken, Schiaparelli is East of Opportunity, but the map shows it to the West. Could someone check and correct this, if it is the case? Tony Mach (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

From investigating within the Wikipedia iOS app, I believe this template has difficulty rendering properly on devices with a small screen width. Both mobile web and the Wikipedia iOS app show this problem. The map scrolls horizontally on these small screens, but the elements on the map are fixed and don't horizontally scroll. MCleinman (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The image map version that was here before had substantial issues with accessibility and breaking the pages it was on by forcing itself into the centre of a page with no text wrapping allowed (which is normal for templates). Since the content here was useful, I've converted it over to a traditional navbox and expanded the number of sites from what was there before. I'd also removed this from all articles it was used on prior to the change (and will re-add it to the pertinent articles) but apologies to anyone who had it on their user page and had it changed on them. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Can someone revert this edit war? I've done so twice and now this. This navbox has been on this page since about 2012. Please call in an admin or two, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy, if you would like to put forward a substantive, policy-based reason to preserve a generally policy violating template I'm all ears. Until that time, a: accusing me of edit warring is out of line. I made the changes and started a discussion on the Mars task force page, which you are party to. b:

no amount of longevity of some item in an article or other page is sufficient to surmount a conflict with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which may have changed since the material was inserted.

Per WP:UNCHALLENGED Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, please understand that WP:UNCHALLENGED is an opinion essay and has nothing to do with guidelines or policies. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Still waiting for the original template which has existed since 2012 to be brought back to this title and the pretty good navbox moved to its own title. Still not sure if I reverted again now, eight days later, if it would be called an edit war by another editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring attempts at engaging you repeatedly, followed by accusations of edit warring and vandalism while throwing a tantrum and refusing to engage in the discussion portion of WP:BRD until you get your way, then waiting it out and just making the changes you want without any reason beyond your preference would be edit warring, yes. Pretty unambiguously:

If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement.

I’m willing to engage, but only insofar as we address a content dispute here civilly. I’m not spending cycles on demands to have it your way again for zero reason other than you personally liked what was there before and a general belief it was good, especially since this dispute has escalated into you WP:HOUNDing me across Wikipedia, which feels like a lot more effort than reading the repeated attempts at a civil discussion you explicitly and willfully ignored above. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop with the aspersions and hounding concerns and all of the other false accusations, and you should be apologizing and striking these at some point. This is a serious discussion about a very good template which has existed since 2012 and used on many pages which you reverted a number of times and then have left as you wanted it (have you noticed that the things that you accuse me of are actually things that you do? That is a very important life and Wikipedia lesson). Please strike all the false accusations here and elsewhere, thanks. I'll wait (waiting). As for the long-term template, several things need to be done, preferably by you because you have the edit history to repair the damage.

1) Move the good and educational navbox that you created to a new name (no reason to take up a name already being used).

2) Change the name of the navbox at the pages where it is distributed.

3) At that point revert your edit to this page and bring back the long-term (2012) location template.

4) Add the template back to the pages that you removed it from.

5) Sit back and enjoy a job well done.

Sorry if this will entail a bit of moving and repair to your edits. There is nothing wrong with the original template, as can easily be seen once it has returned. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Please strike all the false accusations here and elsewhere

Done.

Sorry if this will entail a bit of moving and repair to your edits.

I mean, I’m sorry you don’t like the changes but I’m not doing all this work for your preference alone. I’ve articulated policy based and substantive reasons why I modified (not whole-cloth replaced) the template to a policy and accessibility confirming one, and the exact policies are outlined above. I froze all editing when you objected and I’ve been trying to civilly engage you this entire time, which should be beyond enough proof that these changes weren’t a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. “Do what I want” isn’t happening without an actual substantive discussion, and that’s not unreasonable.”Well, I know it’s a lot of work but do it anyways” isn’t going to happen on the basis of your demanding without a hint of engagement.

Randy, I don’t think it’s a personal attack to point out I simply do not rate your evaluation of “good” here as meaningful beyond a personal opinion, just as I’m not here trying to argue for this form’s inclusion because I think it’s good. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, hi, and pinging you because you began to get involved in this at another talk page. This more concise discussion may make it easier to wrap your head around the conflict. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why don’t we ping @EF5 who read the WP:HOUND concerns and see if we can actually resolve this reasonably before it either wastes more of our time or ends up at ANI.

Apologies to both of you, this is a long one. (Though I understand Valereee wanted nothing to do with this before). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, I agree with you, this is unacceptable levels of WP:FOLLOWING. Randy, why are you all-of-a-sudden highly interested in topics Warren edits in? If need be, discuss further on the Skyerise ANI report, because I'm not opening another report if my life depended on it. — E_F⁵ 13:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion and HOUND concerns are also incredibly messy (as stated) so I'm probably misinterpreting something. — E_F⁵ 13:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

EF5, yes, you are likely misinterpreting most of this, likely because of the loud and repetitive voice used by Warren in asserting his false claims. Since you've chimed in hopefully can both help as well as strike your aspersions about me hounding. Please realize that I've worked on or used these topics years before Warren came to Wikipedia, and that his concerns about hounding are, as perceived by myself, very unusual for a Wikipedian editor who has any sense of what a watchlist is. Thanks. After striking, please wrap your head around this entire controversary if you have a few minutes (hours?). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, look how many times you two have interacted (and that's just over a month)! That nobody responded to Warren's valid concerns at the ANI is worrying, to say the least. — E_F⁵ 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s what eventually lead to this post. It stopped feeling coincidental. If Randy’s going to keep accusing me of misrepresenting facts I’d appreciate some diffs. As I said at ANI, I welcome sanctions with open arms if that’s true, but Randy has cast a hell of a lot of shade without being asked to back up a single word and I’ve spent hours today digging through old posts to substantiate things. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that discussion still occurring? If my name was mentioned there I would have appreciated a ping. EF5, the few pages we had discussions at were ones I had on my watchlist or came up on my talk page. There was no hounding, this is what occurs when someone edits in diverse areas. Not so hard to understand and I don't know what I have to defend. Warrenmck, why would you need to dig through old posts, I'm not throwing shade on where your edits are placed while you seem to have made it a habit to "throw shade" on my editing history. I'm just editing here, as you are, and we apparently have similar interests and overlap in deletion discussions (as I've said before, I comment quite a bit in deletion discussions, especially on the "Keep" side, and you've read this out on my talk page as somehow a personal attack). I wish we could get a beer or something together (I only like the first two sips of beer, sometimes two). And EF5, please get your striking pen (keyboard) out and go over your comments about me on this page and elsewhere to check on the accuracy of what you are perceiving, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, another revert by either of you will cross 3RR.

Now that I understand even what you're arguing overs: Wait, that's supposed to be a nav template? Good grief. I don't want to get into content here, but for what it's worth it's noisy enough that as a reader I would have missed the small print telling me it's a clickable map. Like, I would have looked at it, thought "What the heck's that supposed to be, and why is it there?"

Randy, maybe it would be helpful to discuss why you think that's better than the normal kind? I mean, it doesn't really matter that it's been around since 2012. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee, and I'll get back with a fuller answer. The map is not a typical navbox but a navimage and a regular clickable template (part of the confusion is that it is a typical navbox) which was used well and appreciated for 12 years. As with other Wikipedia clickable templates, it conveys the topic in visual form, and there shouldn't be any small print but a fully understandable instruction to click on the various locations. The educational value is in the locations - readers can understand where the various rovers landed, what land areas separate them, and get a sense of what NASA and other engineers considered in selecting landing locations and terrain. Back with more at some point, but hopefully this is a good start and a way to break through the accusations and semi-walls-of-texts. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy. Would you have any objection to creating and using both a typical navbox and the navimage? And @Warrenmck, are you objecting to navimages in general, or are there examples of navimages that you wouldn't object to? Valereee (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I object to the use of this navimage on purely technical grounds alone, since a template can’t wrap text and thus this template ends up as a floating map with a huge amount of whitespace. I don’t object to all imagemaps, I did, but Randy and other editors convinced me of their situational value (on a Rembrandt article, I believe). I still think a wider policy on this would be helpful, since these do break navigability for sight-impaired users. In this case, this is purely a navigational element rendered in an image, which creates a huge amount of white space and which is frankly, as you’ve discovered, a bit terrible. Couple that with the accessibility issues and I saw a compelling case for keeping the content but using a standard presentation.

It was often paired with a map that can be seen here, which I think can be expanded and used in articles, and I left in where it was present.

Note that link there contains one of Randy’s un-reverted-reverts, which shows why I repeatedly tried warning him that his reverts were breaking the pages: there’s now a traditional navbox in the middle of the page. That’s the specific reason I held things in a status quo, rather than allowing Randy’s revert to stand per standard WP:BRD. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee

This may be illustrative. There were two of these navboxes, I was in the process of getting to both but stopped my editing when Randy objected. Since that other navbox still exists in the old format, I’ve put it in the middle of a Martian article in my sandbox to see what I mean about it breaking formatting.

This is also why I was freezing the edits instead of accepting Randy’s reverts per BRD. If he reverted the template, that map was shoved at the bottom of all articles it had been used in where it was now placed at the bottom of the page. If he reverted the placement of the template, then a navbox ended up in the middle of the article. So I paused all editing and took it here to discuss, but Randy’s response has been to literally refuse to even read why I did that until I made the changes he wants. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable or stonewalling here, I simply paused to discuss the change and wasn’t willing to undo about 50 edits on the basis of what Randy personally preferred, but I am willing to given a discussion. Randy already changed my mind once on image maps, it’s not like I’m being stubborn here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, @Warrenmck, TLDR. Is there any reason you can't just create another page for the template and leave this one alone for now? Valereee (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I don’t believe I can reasonably tl;dr that paragraph. It explains exactly why I can’t just change it back, and provides examples in a sandbox for why Randy’s reverts were breaking pages.

With all due respect, between the Wikihounding, response to everything accusing me of misrepresenting the facts, accusations of vandalism, edit warring, and explicit statements that they refuse to discuss until they get their way, I’m feeling fairly strongly that this has gone on unchallenged far too long for a small conversation with two active admins. It’s looking like Randy is browbeating everyone into going along with his way just to keep the peace rather than requiring him to actually articulate his position for inclusion beyond “I like it”. I would like to see any discussion of the merits of the change. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, you could literally remove I did, but Randy and other editors convinced me of their situational value (on a Rembrandt article, I believe). I still think a wider policy on this would be helpful, since these do break navigability for sight-impaired users. In this case, this is purely a navigational element rendered in an image, which creates a huge amount of white space and which is frankly, as you’ve discovered, a bit terrible. Couple that with the accessibility issues and I saw a compelling case for keeping the content but using a standard presentation.

It was often paired with a map that can be seen here, which I think can be expanded and used in articles, and I left in where it was present. completely. And that's without reading the rest of your wall of text to see if it's similarly off on a tangent.

I don't need to know how Randy and other editors convinced you, nor that you still think wider policy is needed or why. It's not important to whether or not you could just create another page for now, which is what I asked. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Because at this point that template is live on a bunch of pages, and it’s not a case of just reverting them. This has been going on for six months, I removed that template from a lot of pages before Randy objected, and it’s been reworked in all articles except the one Randy reverted above. With the exception of a few user pages, there are zero mainspace articles currently formatted for the old image map.

I do not think the old version is appropriate for use on Wikipedia. I understand it’s a content dispute but come on, you saw what I saw in that map (a usability and accessibility nightmare). I’m entirely open to being wrong and Randy has convinced me before, but if Randy wants it so desperately it would be far less effort for him to recreate that template on a new page. That wouldn’t require a systematic untangling of a large number of articles.

I didn’t touch the other Mars template and it too isn’t live on any mainspace pages. I wouldn’t change it now knowing there’s an objection, but it’s not reasonable to undo a ton of work because one editor objects for no reason other than they like it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to know how…

Keep in mind I’m sitting in a thread with multiple admins and another party who has lobbed a fair number of accusations at me, and from my perspective the admins involved seem indifferent. That leaves me, as any reasonable editor, in a bit of a bind if I’m not careful explaining things. I’ve been burned badly by this before, so it’s hard not to be defensive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Literally the biggest reason I am not interested is because it requires me to read walls of text. Seriously. I'm sorry you feel you've been burned, but writing long is not helpful for preventing that. Writing short and precise so people will be willing to read it is. I spend more time trimming extraneous stuff from my posts on anything complex than I do in spewing out the initial "an another thing" rant. As far as I can see there are no other admins in this thread. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, you’re 100% right, I’d thought EF5 was apparently. Sorry. I’ll make a sincere effort. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course if renaming the navimage is easier, moving it to a new name, and leaving the navbox at this title, that sounds like the best option for not causing more work. I don't know how many pages it was on, probably just the pages linked on it and the overall Mars rover page? Adding it back on them another day or week in order to calm this discussion down would be nice, and if it needs some kind of code fix that can be figured out. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy, you can either discuss it or find a new spot on Wikipedia to concern yourself with. I’m done with an editor demanding they get their way while completely stonewalling WP:BRD. I’m going to fix up the last link you broke then leave this page entirely alone unless you decide that you’re done unilaterally demanding your way without discussion, especially after the harassment you’ve dished out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee Please, either ask Randy to join WP:BRD or WP:DROPTHESTICK. I’ve been on the defensive for perfectly reasonable edits (It feels relevant that literally every post on this talk page going back to the creation of this template is raising technical problems with it) for days from an editor who refuses WP:BRD. This is taking up far more of all of our time than is reasonable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s clear at this point that Randy thinks this change needs his permission to take place. The only possibility he’s ever entertained is reverting it and making this a new template, he’s only demanded this one be left alone for no reason other than preference.

I am a volunteer editor, I am taking the time to help improve this encyclopedia and I can expect other editors to be doing the same. If that’s not happening, I’m not obligated to bash my head against a wall over and over trying to get an editor to participate. Just as Randy isn’t entitled to his preferred version of a page when there are very good reasons to change it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

With all good faith, did you read my comment below, which was published 16 hours before your incorrect comments above? When it was mentioned how much trouble it would cause to move the navbox from the name its presently at I now think it's best to let it keep the name and move the interactive image (one of many on Wikipedia) to a different title. Please read it now to check if your concerns about which name to use are lessened, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to you recreating the image nav box at its own page and never have, I even said I wouldn't change Template:Features and memorials on Mars since I already knew you'd object, and I'd recreate its content at a new page. I do have objections to its use, but that's a separate issue for later content disputes that frankly ideally don't involve either of us.

I don't understand which of my comments were incorrect in this case, I'm a little confused by the start of your reply, sorry. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, of course not, Warren's navbox which presently sits on the title is a good navbox which I've edited earlier today. It just should be at its own title. As for breaking pages, the example of the broken location image above simply needs to be moved or a 'clear' code put above it. I edit on Monobook, so the image may place different on other pages, and, like with other images, it may be necessary to check page by page to see where it is being crowded and fix the problem there. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)