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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. — EF513:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion and HOUND concerns are also incredibly messy (as stated) so I'm probably misinterpreting something. — EF513:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Have re-created and added {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}} minus the Rosalind Franklin rover which has not yet flown to Mars. Named it after Drbogdan so as to not take credit for its creation. Agreed above that the name originally used would be transferred to Warrenmck's very good footer navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this isn't an attempt at a fait accompli sidestepping the entire discussion process above
@Valereee, I'm done with this project. Randy's decided to recreate this horseshit template on every article it was removed from by simply renaming it and putting it back where it was. There's a long attempt at a discussion about this above that Randy never participated in. As he clearly owns this part of Wikipedia and other editors are not allowed to have influence, I'm just going to hope you can call this out appropriately after trying to get randy to engage on the substance of that garbage map since April. Maybe, as this has already driven editors off the project, coming down on it at some point was warranted? Either way, best of luck. At this point Randy's getting his way by running editors off the project by throwing tempter tantrums. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has hounded me off-wiki and on, and now back on. The above "controversy" occurred when Warren, without discussion, replaced the long-time (2012 or earlier) template with a navbox, then reverted my attempts to return the template, caused an edit war, and now is back to try to destroy the long-time template again. There are no issues with it. We have a problem here and I almost never ask for help from admins but this fellow is way over the line and has a history of attacking me with false aspersions off-wiki. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the blatant fait accompli. You're free to engage with the discussion above about the appropriateness of those templates, but the reason that what was there was swapped to a text form was because of a hell of a lot of specific reasons. It wasn't an attempt to recreate something else in the same name space, it was an attempt to make this information conform to style and accessibility guides. Every editor besides yourself in this disucssion didn't think they were great, and above there are explicit objections to doing what you just did without engaging:
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.
The attacking sock is using User:Wikibreaksock, which seems to be a general sock. Why is this even a sock if anyone can use it to get around an actual attacking account? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disclosed sock of an account I have no access to. Instead of lashing out and throwing yet another tantrum over this exact same thing for a third time, maybe try engaging with the substantive discussion around the template you desire to include rather than just adding it back to every article it was removed from and unilaterally declaring "nothing is wrong with it"? Maybe just take me to ANI instead of just lobbing accusations nonstop? This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No tantrum occurring, you have imaginary things occurring as in the past. Anyone reading this, please see for a talk page discussion on the sock page which Warren has hidden, thanks. There is nothing wrong with the map, as I think you admit above, and you deleting it without a discussion was the reason it had to be recreated and redistributed. You and your fondness for ANI, what is that all about? Many if not most of your Warren edits were to ANI and trying to damage other Wikipedians on-line editing work, and now you want a sock to engage me in another pointless long discussion in order to throw aspersions? I don't even know how to ask for admin help with this problem, it's so rare for me. Can you help by calling in an admin who has been friendly towards you and you trust? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of which existed when you, as Wikibreaksock just reverted all of my work. The template was set away from other images or text, so no sandwiching was occurring, as was your main complaint. What else is wrong with it? The map shows where Martian probes landed, and is a long-time interactive map to those sites. So I stand by my assertion that there is nothing wrong with it and you should immediately revert all of your removals. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed plenty of specific, policy based objections. The discussions have been there since April. One of which was the lack of usability by sight impaired users for a purely navigational map, one of which was the fact that the navigational aid could be paired with a non-interactive map with greater utility, and another is that identical information could be displayed in a way that didn't break page functionality or accessibility. The only argument you're bringing forward as far as I can tell is a) it's been there a long time and b) you like it. a) isn't a valid argument in these discussions, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and b) isn't going to overcome substantive objections. Hell, look at Valereee's response to realizing what it was you were fighting over:
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?"
Yeah I'm going to got ahead and ask you to strike your aspersions. Seriously, you've flung a lot of crap around today and need to own that slightly. The reason I told you to take it to ANI, and the reason you backed away, I imagine, is because we both know that those claims were the sort that'd need to be backed up. I'm very, very, very comfortable having my behaviour here scrutinized. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I don't intend to ANI further nonsense is that you tried to do so once on this exact topic and now claim you left because you didn't get your way. Why do you think another ANI would be different? There are no problems with the template even though you claim that there are. Sight impaired viewers may or may not want the template gone because of its inaccessibility (or is it inaccessible? Graham87, can you read the {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}? It's just a clickable location map of probes and objects on Mars lined up on a map of Mars, a very good template that Drbogdan perfected well over a decade ago and was removed without discussion, twice now). I don't know what you mean by the other objections, can you describe those further, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Yes, I can, but I prefer {{Features and artificial objects on Mars}} because it's text-only and therefore less cluttered (I don't hear extra alt text, etc.). Totally blind screen reader users aren't the only people we need to consider here; we also need to think about the template's accessibility for users with low/limited vision and I have no expertise in that space. People who do can be summoned at the accessibility guideline's talk page, but the temperature is so high here (unlike Martian conditions) that I'd understand people's hesitancy to wade in to this discussion. BTW, post-signature pings don't work, so I only found this discussion because of your notification on my talk page. I don't really want to get involved here any further. Graham87 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham87, just wanted to make sure you could read the newer template at {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}, which was an objection for a template which is now under a separate name because of allowing this text navbox to take its named-place here after these very odd past and present discussions. Won't bother you with this again, just wanted a readability check. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary objections raised were due to accessibility. Legibility was never raised as a concern, you decided that accessibility meant legibility then dismissed everything else @Graham87 said, it seems?
Randy, in the last two or so hours you've accused me of:
Edit warring
Wikihounding
Aspersions
Bad faith attacks
Threatened me with a permaban for reverting your edits
Continued leaving comments on my talk page after being asked to stop
Please feel free to systematically strike those. You don't get to treat other editors like a punching bag because they revert your inappropriate fait accompli. You don't get to accuse me of being overly willing to go to ANI in response to a firehose of bad faith personal attacks. Seriously, you can go ahead and strike those. That last ANI was closed because of my flounce, even the closing admin saw substance in the ANI filing and you're hardly covering yourself with glory here. If you want us to back away from the edge and actually talk about this, then own your behaviour that got us here rather than trying to gaslight in a shockingly conventional sense of the term.
a very good template that Drbogdan perfected well over a decade ago and was removed without discussion, twice now
"Very good" is a tautological statement clearly other editors disagree with. The template wasn't replaced, it was modified to remove the image and the content expanded. It's more usable. That you like it is very well noted, but you haven't made any argument as to why it should stay. Clearly it wasn't done without discussion when the discussion is RIGHT ABOVE US. If your response to a discussion is going to be
tltr , when you revert back to the long-term template (since 2012) I'll read your post
Good lord, what happened here? I've skimmed this talk page and the relevant AN/I discussion and I'm still trying to understand why this escalated. Given a lack of agreeable consensus, WP:ASTRONOMY should be notified to draw additional discussion or this topic should be disengaged—from the looks of it, either option should've taken place long ago. ArkHyena (she/they) 13:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for god's sake. This has been going on for over a year and Randy hasn't actually weighed in with anything other than that the old template was there for a long time and he likes it. I outlined a bunch of specific, policy-based and technical reasons above why I changed it and he's just gone off the rails accusing me of anything he can while openly and explicitly refusing to engage and breaking pages in the process. That he did it in front of an admin without sanction is embarrassing for WP in general. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ArkHyena, many blessings on you and yours for posting here. Please see this edit which removed a long-term template with no discussion and then the follow-up edits which culminated in a failed ANI and then the user rage quitting and going off wiki to cast aspersions on me. Just click on that edit, go from there, and see what I've had to put up with. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion thread immediately when I modified the template. It was not removed, it was modified to conform to navbox policies and a discussion started, one which you explicitly refused to engage in. You have not yet, in the year this has been going on, explained why you believe the version you like is good, rather than just a statement that you believe it's good and that it's been here a long time, which an admin has already told you is irrelevant. In the meantime you've done nothing but lob serious accusations at me which you so far refuse to strike. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, with all due respect I don’t care at all that you liked the old template. You’ve made that clear. Feel free to put the recreated version on your user page as a bauble if you really want, but you’re acting like asking for your preferred version to be restored is something other editors are obligated to do. We are not. Every single editor here, all of them, other than you, has had a negative reaction to the version you prefer. You haven’t explained how the version you prefer doesn’t introduce accessibility issues, and isn’t directly better in other forms. Tautological statements that the navbox was removed aren’t helpful. Nobody cares how long it was here. Nobody is obligated to care about the fact that you really like that version. That’s noted.
Are you intending on letting your barrage of personal attacks stand? Because I’m willing to drag this bullshit to ANI again, if so. You do not get to throw a half dozen accusations and back away the second and editor calls your bluff. Either stand by it, or apologize. There are far too many personal attacks from you directed at me on this page and this has gone on long enough. Again, the last ANI was closed with a statement that there was substance in the complaint. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: conduct, I'm not here to point out specific rights and wrongs committed by either of you. I would, however, strongly advise that both of you cease laying out your grievances on the others' conduct, as this discussion is already heated.
I don't think I'm capable of mediate a resolution here, considering how both of you remain steadfast in your positions despite all of the above. I'd suggest either re-notifying WP:ASTRONOMY (WP:ASTRO is less active, and the Mars task force is pretty much dormant) or bringing this to WP:DNR. I think it would be best to restart a discussion on the original issue from scratch, and dropping this dispute entirely seems unlikely to help things at this point given how it's reignited, but it desperately needs uninvolved opinions (and potentially third-party oversight). ArkHyena (she/they) 15:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely do not think Randy is willing to accept any outcome that doesn’t include the old template. This has been going on for a year. Randy instantly launched into a litany of accusations; what am I meant to do when an editor responds this way to a bog-standard revert of a disputed template being added by a party who has openly disengaged from the discussion?
This is why I advise you both to seek out external opinions and, if necessary, a mediated/moderated resolution. It is very clear that this will not self-resolve without ending in at least another AN/I post. Points relevant to content have been exhausted, and this has turned into a long feedback loop of who-did-what. External input would hopefully mitigate that, alongside establishing an agreed-upon consensus—note that consensus is often not unanimous, and it is likely that you or Randy will disagree with it. That is part of the dispute resolution process. If mutual grievances persist, then civil methods to sort those out can be initiated, but that should remain separate from the content dispute. ArkHyena (she/they) 16:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this now, the current template (which should be the topic of discussion here) is pretty much exactly what I expect and want from a navbox: it helps readers gain context for the articles in which it appears. It does that in an unobtrusive way. The other template is nice work too; it's just inconsistent with what's generally expected. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 17:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Warrenmck, I am inclined to revert your reversion. I cannot tell what your objections to the are in this torrent of grievances. What I can tell is that preventing use of this interactive image is extremely important to you for some reason, so I will try to treat your objections with respect. To do that, I need to know what those objections are, succinctly in the form of a simple list, because I am not going to spend time pawing through everything that has already been written: The ratio of what is relevant to what has been written is too low for anyone of sound mind to grapple with. If you think the content violates policies or guidelines, please wikilink the relevant guideline in the bullet point. In your response, if you write anything at all about the history of this dispute, or about Randy Kryn or what you believe they will or won’t do or what goes on in their head, I will go ahead with the reversion. I do not mean that I endorse Randy Kryn’s behavior or their position on the content in dispute; I mean that it’s irrelevant and I don’t have time for that. The reason I am inclined to revert is that the content seems, superficially, to have value, and its deficits do not seem so extreme as to warrant the amount of attention given to the matter. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The old version creates substantial accessibility and page rendering issues (text doesn’t wrap around it properly, issues for screen readers and readers with vision issues). There are accessibility guidelines that touch on this.
2. It is a navbox, and should be useful as such per navbox and accessibility MOS. There are reasons Wikipedia doesn’t have these kind of navigational aids.
3. Randy Kryn has not, at any point, engaged in a discussion around the version he wants beyond stating the old one is good. He has simply declared it should be back on the page. This is why I reverted Randy here, because he’s actively declared himself a non-participant on the content discussion above, and the version of the page he was editing in was already explicitly objected to above, so it would never be a noncontroversial edit from someone who had bowed out of the discussion.
Your response links no policies or guidelines and takes up space reiterating grievances irrelevant to the merits of your argument. I will revert. Strebe (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept.
Except with very good reason, do not use px (), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting.
I don’t think WP:NAVDECOR is relevant. While the content in question is a navbox in construction, it does not function as a typical navbox and therefore the guidelines for typical navbox would not apply.
I don’t think WP:ACCIM is relevant. The content is not being used in place of a table or chart; it is being used as an interactive map. If the description needs to be improved to service those who cannot see the image, that is a matter for improvement, not elimination. Furthermore, the unfortunate circumstance of some people being unable to see the image does not thereby mean no one should, as is true for any image.
I don’t think MOS:ACCESS applies. Sandwiching text between two images does not seem to be involved. The fixed image size is an artifact of the content’s construction, and therefore is “absolutely necessary”. Again, not a reason to eliminate it entirely.
You do understand “Randy hasn’t discussed any of this” isn’t a grievance, but a material point relating to his editing, yes? Yes, it is a point about “his” editing, but no, it is not a material point. I am engaging your editing, not “his”.
In summary, I think the article is better with the content, whatever its flaws; I do no see it in violation of any policy; and, while objections ought to be respected and debated, the bias needs to be toward keeping useful content, not deleting it on debatable technicalities. Finding ways to improve the content would be much better. Strebe (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the issue with the fixed image size is partially that it causes rendering issues with various accessibility devices and it stops text from wrapping around the template, as it’s not an image. The reasons that we’re careful with fixed image sizes are beyond just aesthetic but actually relate to the way images are rendered.
but all along my only point of contention has been that changes be made with discussion, not by fiat. Feel free to act as a third party here. My proposal above was that if this content must be displayed that this image be used instead with links in the description. That solves the formatting and accessibility issues, keeps the same content, and is far more readable.
I’m confused by your claim that this image “keeps the same content”. It does not. It lacks a coordinate system; it lacks every mission that reached Mars but did not succeed; it lacks links to the missions; it lacks the topography that is important to the context. I would prefer that the disputed image’s topology coloring be more in line with best practice. I would prefer that it distinguishes between successful and failed missions, but that’s fixable. I would prefer there be no “thumbnails” for the links, since they are too small to look like anything better than garbage; that’s fixable. The inability to wrap around text seems minor. I look at the page on my mobile device, both in Desktop and Mobile view, and either way its layout on the page looks fine. I’m left mystified by your longstanding, vehement opposition to this graphic, and I don’t see your proposed replacement as clearly better. Strebe (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for becoming involved Strebe, it's nice to have someone else have a look at this. To avoid any confusion, this discussion is about {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}} which is a template, not a navigational box. The re-named navbox that this page is a talk page of is a navbox, and a pretty good one, and I wouldn't want it removed at this late date. I distributed the renamed template, without objection, to the articles that it used to exist on. They were carefully distributed so that there was no sandwiching or text. Then they were all reverted for, as far as I can tell, little or no reason except an "I don't like it" opinion. My trust in Warren has been much lessened since he began writing aspersions about my work on Wikipedia on an off-wiki site, seemingly attempting to smear my name and work with mud that just doesn't stick (but repeated enough times...). Communicating with him here had been troublesome even before he went on off-wiki rants, and has now been made more difficult by his removing, once again, a perfectly good template which had been in constant use, with no complaints, since at least 2012. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I distributed the renamed template, without objection
An objection to that exact change has been on this page since it was mentioned in April. There was no further discussion on it.
seemingly attempting to smear my name and work with mud that just doesn't stick
I’m left mystified by your longstanding, vehement opposition to this graphic
Well, I’ve made my perspective clear and it’s shared by a few others. You’re free to disagree. Neither I nor Randy own this page. My issue has always been that the only editor (until now) who wants to keep it doesn’t want to discuss its inclusion, merely undo a change they didn’t like because they didn’t like it.
If you spent a bunch of time fixing up something in Wikipedia and an editor objected, then refused to discuss their objections while going around accusing you of anything that could possibly stick on the talk page in lieu of any actual engagement, how inclined would you be to listen to that editor? Did you miss the diff where he explicitly said he wouldn’t even read the talk page discussion until things were reverted to his preferred state? This is not how Wikipedia works. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warren, I don't want to talk to you at any length for reasons I've mentioned above. But hoping that you realize that {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}} is not a navbox? It is a template. Two different things, and two ways of distributing information on Wikipedia. Linking to guidelines or essays on navboxes does not apply to the Mars feature map template. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo was without these templates and this change had already been discussed and deemed contentious long before you did it anyways. Given this has escalated into a serious content dispute with behavioural concerns, maybe don’t misrepresent the situation and don’t poison the well. We can trust other editors to evaluate this and make a good judgement.
Status quo began with the template existing. For 12 years. And no, you misunderstand again, it does not break the flow of text here. It was placed after the first sentence of my post on purpose. Since it can be referred to and seen easily above, can you explain in simple words what is so wrong with it that you are determined to remove it again? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out to you dozens of times now, including by an admin, that longevity is not a valid argument. The status quo now is the seven or so months that these templates have been off the pages, and the proposal to put both on the page at the same time was discussed above and explicitly tagged as controversial. The sum total of your arguments so far to keep it are a) you like it and b) it's been here a long time. a) isn't pertinent to Wikipedia and b) isn't a valid argument for inclusion. If you want to explain why you believe that template should be on the page beyond "it was already there" I am sure we'd love to hear it. But you need to make that case before unilaterally adding a template that has accessiblity issues. That you didn't believe the template breaks the text here is pretty much part of the issue, since the issue isn't all browsers but specifically accessibility focused ones.
Per BRD, you made a controversial edit, it was reverted, and now we're discussing it. Lying to third parties about the substance of previous discussions, or the status quo of the page, isn't helping anybody. There's a reason I said months ago that the inclusion of the maps above was
a separate issue for later content disputes that frankly ideally don't involve either of us.
Note that you did not answer my question or provide one reason why it is not a good template except about breaking text, which I mention above was done on purpose (the first sentence of my post introduced the template). The only reason it's been off the pages for months is that you initially removed it and wouldn't put it back after I reverted twice, then you rage quit, and I finally got around to recreating it. My argument is not as you describe it (wrong, again) but that it has always been a very useful map to show readers where the objects on Mars landed and exist in relationship to each other. On top of that it's clickable, so readers coming upon it can instantly research the links. You object to the name as well, but the reason it was named after Drbogdan was to assure that he gets the credit for it and not myself. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan was a promotional vandal permanently removed from the project for it, not sure why we'd care about what credit he gets. The arguments around accessibility have been zero percent addressed, and you even basically shut down a disabled editor telling you they actively prefer the other version. Nobody, not one person here, is obligated to restore a template that you like which introduces problems merely because of your preference. If you want to argue for its inclusion without mentioning that it was here since 2012 or just stating your belief it's good, there's a couple of detailed discussions above around the technical and accessibility issues with the template you're free to join.
it has always been a very useful map to show readers where the objects on Mars landed and exist in relationship to each other
Except you completely skipped the discussion above about an image version of a similar map with less arbitrary choices that doesn't break the page or introduce accessibility issues. I'm not trying to say "Therefore we must use that instead" but given how many times the policies call on us to be very careful when using fixed-width images, and the existence of a solution that doesn't used fixed-width images while keeping the exact spatial relationship information, I'm struggling to see why we should use this version. But again, that's a content dispute, and one that needs to be discussed without reference to the longevity of the older template or your personal preference, which is noted. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strebe answered you well above about your alternate map. I give credit to Drbogdan because that's what people do in life, or should, when working with information or a creation that's not their own. I did not "shut down" Graham, what are you talking about? What a strong and incorrect (again) aspersion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strebe is one of five editors involved here, and one who I've taken time to listen to. Is it lost on you that I was open to having an editor who agrees with you serve as a neutral third party? I do not have a hardline stance on the templates inclusion or not, I do have a hardline stance on letting an editor bulldoze their way past BRD. You haven't commented on the fact that there's an alternate way to display this information with none of the problems, which is already live on some Mars pages. That's why I'm treating you as engaging in bad faith here; if your concern was the information still being conveyed you'd be open to discussions about how to convey this information in other ways so that nothing is lost. You do not seem to be, and you've not once touched on any proposed alternative. And yeah, I do see this
Thanks Graham87, just wanted to make sure you could read the newer template
as shutting him down when the post you're responding to went into detail about why the alternative worked better for accessibility. You seem to have invoked a blind editor to win an argument, rather than actual concern with their feedback. Nobody had said it was illegible, just that it introduced problems, and you went and fetched a blind editor and asked them if they could read it then just ignored anything that was detrimental to the point you were trying to make. It's... a bit gross, actually. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try "despicable" and look in a mirror while saying it so you get the syntax right. You raised the concern of it not being blind accessible, I asked Graham if he could read it and he said yes although he prefers the navbox (the navbox is not in question, it exists and will exist), but he didn't want to comment further or get involved so I left it at that. Understand? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on what they said about sight-impared viewers, as well? He said yes with some caveats that you were quick to move past.
Let me try again, more explicitly. What are your objections to using the image to the side here? It allows for text wrapping, scaling,, is language-independent (assuming Latin script), and conveys the same information? It can be expanded to include the full list, and then it's wrapped into the page. Again, I don't think this is the only answer, I'm just trying to figure out if your objection is to losing the information in map form or that specific map. Are there specific ways this could be improved on? Specific reasons this is worse?
What are your objections to using the image to the side here? Do you mean, besides the ones I already listed? Can you please engage those? And, you keep saying “the same information”, which is false, and repeating it doesn’t seem terribly “genuous” to me. Strebe (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually missed your detailed response! Sorry about that.
It lacks a coordinate system;
This map probably doesn't need a coordinate system, as the points are marked directly on the map. This is a content issue, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer on that one.
it lacks every mission that reached Mars but did not succeed;
I agree. It definitely would need to be updated.
it lacks links to the missions;
Not the version I've linked there, it has them in the description.
it lacks the topography that is important to the context.
The MOLA topography also introduces false detail in places, and loses it in others. There's an argument to using MOLA, but actually I think the photo is preferrable. The map's resolution here is so low that I think it's hard to argue the MOLA map is that critical.
I would prefer that the disputed image’s topology coloring be more in line with best practice.
This one actually is best practice for that instrument. The imagemap is from the Mars Orbiting Laser Altimeter instrument, and that colour scheme is standardized for MOLA maps. That's one of my content objections to the map as it is, I think MOLA's map is probably too busy in places for an image of that size. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the color scheme on the MOLA is “standard” and shows up all over the place in published papers in the geosciences, but in visualization science, that color scheme is considered arbitrary and less informative than alternatives. I don’t have a problem, though, with the “busyness” (although even that would be corrected with a better color scheme). I think the topography is pretty important in understanding the context, even in the low detail it appears in there. I’m not sure what you mean by “false detail”: exaggeration is necessary, if that’s what you mean. The image has aliasing that could be corrected, if that’s what you mean. Meanwhile, lacking topographical context and a coordinate system, the bare imagery loses much of its utility for me. As far as the links go, clicking on the label rather than hunting for it below (a problem that would be compounded by adding the many more sites of failed missions) seems much better to me. I don’t like the map projection for either one of the proposals on the table. A double hemispheric stereographic would give a much better sense for real distances and the shape of the planet. Strebe (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOLA’s resolution isn’t amazing, it misses some topography where the laser spots were too wide. I don’t really think this matters for that map. Likewise, the aliasing you’re seeing is inherent to MOLA’s data reduction, so we can’t smooth it out. For an already busy map I’d probably prefer a real photo to MOLA, I’d only because MOLA seems like an arbitrary choice and adds a lot of visual noise.
The aliasing I refer to is quite easily eliminated by going back to the original resolution and doing a simple bicubic (for example) downsampling, which would (or could) reduce busyness. It doesn’t look to me like the disputed image got anything better than nearest-neighbor. Some judicious work in a photo editing program could improve the color scheme as well. As for accessibility, why can’t the map be both interactive and accessible? Just because links are on the labels doesn’t mean they can’t also be in the textual description. Meanwhile, bare imagery is hardly a map. For me, the topography and coordinate system are important — especially with the terrible rectangular projection, further slanted into obfuscation in the bare image version. Strebe (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with accessibility isn’t just that it’s a map, but also that the use of a template for the maps can break screen readers and be a serious challenge for site impacted users. Generally Wikipedia has a pretty hard line against fixed width images for this reason (among others), and the fixed width images are required for imagemaps. The very fact that it’s an imagemap is an accessibility issue.
I’m open to an argument that this is a case where an imagemap is exceptional, but personally I’d rather prefer if we could find a way to make a labelled map with a legend that preserves accessibility, that’s why I asked if it was mandatory that it be clickable. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t worked with dynamic images, particularly in the context of Wikipedia, so I don’t know what’s possible, but I know SVG can include hyperlinks, so I don’t know what would keep an image from preserving accessibility while also being clickable. If this is just a matter of making one, I could probably do something, but I don’t want to put a bunch of work into it only to have people raise objections after the fact. I don’t have any particular skill with it, so I wouldn’t be able to just whip one out without caring about it. I provided a base image that I think is an improvement over either candidate that has been under discussion, but so far, no one has commented. Strebe (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will raise that several Martian features are difficult to see on a visible imagery map (not surprising, considering the planet's vibrant color palette), so a topography map is preferable in that regard. However, the topography map's color palette is suboptimal for colorblind users, so I'd prefer a monochrome gradient be used instead. Removing shadows could also help with visual noise, and I really don't think they're necessary on a topography map. ArkHyena (she/they) 19:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The present Mars map has the most information, the one you point to is just "where on the sphere" the landings took place. Colorblind individuals know they have colorblindness and have already learned what and what not to rely on. The concern about clickability seems unjustified given the amount of information it carries and the fact that clickable templates are plentiful and acceptable on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I object to returning this template to articles. Even ignoring the issues with accessibility for sight-impaired users, this template isn't even properly functional on mobile! The down arrow doesn't point to anything, several of the links overlap, and half of them are off-screen to the left. Since mobile is where the vast majority of our readers come from, a template being dysfunctional on mobile is a very strong argument against. Since I have yet to see Randy provide strong enough arguments in favor to counteract that, I oppose using this template in any articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While text navboxes don't appear on mobile, clickable maps do. I can't speak for every mobile screen, but I know that it breaks on my iPhone 15. The main issue with it on mobile seems to be that many of the links are far to the left of where they should be, leaving parts of the template unusable. Zhurong also partially covers Perseverance, making the latter's label difficult to read. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks QuicoleJR, didn't know that (I've never looked at Wikipedia on mobile) and was told that templates did not appear. If the clickable templates do then that is a problem, and I wish there were some way to solve it. Was that what you were getting at Wikibreaksock? If you made that clear before I missed it in your tendency to wall-of-text tl;dr posts or in how you phrased the language (we can still talk until that "gotcha" ANI thing ends). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE to QuicoleJR and others, please don't take from my comment that I am withdrawing my request to put back the long-term template (removed after 12-plus years) as the status quo as or before its use is decided. There are many clickable templates on Wikipedia, they are also long-term and have existed as clickable mapping sites. As for use, the very tiny photos can be removed as has been suggested here and elsewhere (I'm not sure how to edit them out, haven't checked the coding that closely, if someone can do that one task please do so, thanks). Clickable templates, used on Wikipedia, are both functional and reasonable. If there is some issue with mobile that is a separate issue and can be addressed without removing the template or its accessibility use in Wikipedia mainspace. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I have no objection to clickable maps as a concept (I'm quite fond of the one at Mars in fiction) and I would be fine with this map's inclusion in articles if its functionality on mobile is fixed. However, until it is fixed, I would oppose using a broken template in mainspace. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
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)
Clickable image: Clicking on the labels will open a new article.
