Template talk:Mars

float

{{editprotected}} I noticed that this template floats left. While it's a very small box, this doesn't look quite right when compared to the other, centered nav boxes in the Mars and related articles, such as Phobos (moon) and Deimos (moon). Can someone with the authority change it so that it centers? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Actually, it wasn't a float to the left, it was vandalism in part of its CSS. I've reverted the vandalism. --ais523 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for fixing it - it looks much nicer now. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How to prevent template links appearing on What links here?

Each article that includes this footer causes the Special:Whatlinkshere to include a link to every other article. This makes the Whatlinkshere a lot more difficult to use. For example Hellas Planitia now has some 120 linkins, whereas before the Footer I doubt there were 20. Don't get me wrong, I like the navigation box, but it now spams the linkin list. -Wikianon 19:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2 Broken Important Links

Noticed that Mars Exploration Links are broken or missing from this Mars Footer. The "Exploration" Link is broken in the title and non-existent in the body. Tried to fix myself but apparently still couldn't get the syntax correct so i changed nothing. Thanks. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLatham53 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) \

I'm not sure which links you say are broken. The Exploration link worked when I tried it. Also, did you want it repeated in the body of the template because other editors have resisted whenever I have put something as both a title and in the main space. Remember (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A Planitia is not a Mountain

Why is Elysium planitia included among mountains ? It's a plain region that includes several mountains, but it's not a moutain itself. It should be among regions. 216.162.76.243 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Luc D.

 Done --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Valles Marineris

 Done Not sure about the placement, but at least it is on there. —EncMstr (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)}} Valles Marineris ought to be on this template somewhere. --Harald Khan Ճ 08:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Very high template

• Now it is a very high template. Maybe divide it in some smaller templates (geography, astronomy, exploration)? NickSt (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@NickSt - Thank you for your comment - yes, perhaps a "collapsible" section may be a solution (see Template talk:Comets for examples) - especially if others also view this as a problem (so far, no one else has afaik) - for now, should note that the following code may be useful => adjust the usual { {Mars}} code in a particular article page of concern to { {Mars|state=collapsed}} instead - a more global solution of a "collapsed" (rather than the current "autocollapse") template is also possible of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I propose to remove an Exploration section due to duplication with {{Mars spacecraft}} and {{Manned mission to Mars}}. NickSt (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@NickSt - Thanks for your comment - the template seems ok to me at the moment - however, collapsing or removing a section may be possible - especially, as before, if others are also in agreement - in any regards - Thanks for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Monstrous template

In its current state, the template is an unwieldy monster. When you are reading e.g. the article Tharsis Tholus, what you are most likely looking for is other volcanoes, not craters or comets. It would make much more sense to have separate templates for volcanoes (and perhaps other mountains), regions, canyons etc.

This template should be trimmed down to the essentials of Mars (see e.g. {{Earth}}), where we for example could have links to the lists that are currently found to the left on the template.

A template this big could perhaps make sense in the Mars article, but not elsewhere. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It should be split up into subtemplates. --JorisvS (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In order to have something more concrete to discuss, I've created the (very crude) draft template {{Volcanism on Mars}} as an example. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Another draft/suggestion, this time for craters: {{Impact cratering on Mars}} (partially based on this list). --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is very useful but too large. I suggest to make the collapsible sub-sections, as someone did to the similarly large template at Mexican drug war. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - a "collapsible" version may be possible - one *very preliminary* version may look something like the following if interested (see below) - notice that the state of subgroups may be either "collapsed" or "uncollapsed" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I would collapse all sections, not just "geography". My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's unwieldy regardless. The point is to aid readers' navigation, but with so many links to search through, I, for one, wouldn't use it. --JorisvS (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment, I agree and disagree - I agree the "collapsible" template may be a bit much to navigate - due to clicking subgroups and related - I disagree that the present template is too much - I *really* like viewing *all* the created articles about Mars in one view - without having to click (or locate) a lot of subgrouped templates instead - I don't mind scrolling the uncollapsed template if I need to view more - but that's me - others may think differently of course - please understand that, if not already done so in a particular article, the present template can be coded to be collapsed by default - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand you like to see all the articles created. We could still keep this template, maybe at Mars itself, where all links are quite relevant, so you can keep seeing all of them. However, we should also keep readers in mind. And such a large navigation template does not help those who'd have to search through it to find a link. Therefore, we should create subtemplates and put them where they can then actually help readers navigate to related articles. --JorisvS (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - Yes - I *entirely* agree - and understand - my present position is to be flexible with better ways of presenting the template - or parts of the template as subgroups of some sort - it's all *entirely* ok with me - my earlier comments were more my own preferences at the moment - and not intended to compromise better ways of presenting the template(s) - esp on behalf of usual readers of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with JorisvS, because it is precisely the large amount of articles related to Mars that bring about the need for such Navbar. As the research and missions to Mars increase, so will the articles in Wikipedia, and what best way to find what to look for than the Navbar? How about the navbar format used on the Earth article? It seems they separated them into different templates but are presented together in a collapsed state under the title "Articles related to Earth". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

None of those templates list every mountain, lake, river, bay etc. on Earth that we have an article on, and nor is that thing pasted onto every article about a geographic feature on Earth; which is exactly the way this Mars template is currently used.

As has been said, we could have such a template in the article on Mars, but not in the article on every tiny crater and valley on Mars that we have an article on. There is very little point in that - why should we assume that someone reading the article on Galle (Martian crater) should be interested in browsing a list of valleys on Mars? Could they not just as well be interested in reading more craters on other bodies in general, and hence find a link to Herschel (Mimantean crater) more useful?

We already have the category tree to find every topic on Mars, and it stays updated as long as categorisation is done properly - which it typically is in the long run. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - seems that some readers interested in "Galle (Martian crater)" may also be interested in other craters on Mars - however - some other readers, rather than being interested in other craters, may be more interested in other geological features within the same quadrangle as "Galle (Martian crater)" instead - such as plains, like "Argyre Planitia" - or even mountains, like "Charitum Montes" - seems the present Mars template covers all-bases (so-to-speak) with readers, whereas a craters-only template presumes that a reader interested in "Galle (Martian crater)" will also be interested in other craters - this presumption may be off-the-mark (so-to-speak) with many, maybe even most?, readers - we just don't know the mind of the usual reader - it amounts to quesswork on our part - and a limitation of choices presented to readers - which may make such limited templates useless in some, maybe even most?, instances I would think - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that when templates get too big, no readers might actually use them. For one, if a reader knows about Nereidum Montes in advance, it would be faster to type in nereid in the search box and pick the right option than to navigate through this template. But most important is the possibility that the reader might simply find the template too big and clunky to bother to interact with it beyond clicking on the "show" option.

Small templates with a few items are more appealing than walls of text, and should therefore be more likely to be used - at all.

So for Galle, we could have a template for impact cratering on Mars, and one for the quadrangle it is located within. In the case of explored craters like Gusev, it would also make sense to have a template for the crater itself, to list up the hills, craters and other things found within it. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes - the suggested notion re the "Articles related to Earth" Navboxes template in the Earth article (see post above by User:BatteryIncluded) seems like a good idea - at least for a try - maybe something like the "Proof of Concept" example presented below? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I would remove the portion on the Solar System. It is supposed to be all about mars, and as brief as possible. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done => remmed (*entirely* ok w/ me to rm) the {{Solar System}} template ("inherited" from the "Articles related to Earth" Navboxes template) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The selection of the features in the template is obviously random, it is a heap of (mainly) unremarkable features with dubious notability. What's the point for all these countless Corby, Galdakao, Grindavik, Fram, Argo and so on? They hamper to see really important ones. The list should include only the biggest or other most notable features, like {{Impact cratering on Mars}}. Stas (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stas000D: One possible solution, to really see important features in Template:Mars, may be to highlight the remarkable features - as italics - or as bold - or as CAPITALS - or, in some related way, such as ALL - highlighting features in one of these ways would quickly identify the important features, from the less important ones, I would think - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am starting to swing to the view point of Stas000D and JorisvS. The Navbar is not meant to be a complete list of all articles on Martian things, but an aid to navigate them. If we focus on the essentials, I bet we could have a very useful Navbar with a fraction of the info. Specifically: If we include a link of "List to xyz", then we must delete the contents of that list in the Navbar. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

YES - Agreed - although the present template seems ok to me at the moment, improving the template in some better way may be possible - and *entirely* ok with me - especially, as before, if others are also in agreement - in any regards - Thanks for the recent comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's need to remove "Spacecraft" sections because it already covered by navbox {{Mars spacecraft}}. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend trimming the geography from the template and instead create and link a separate template. That section is extremely full of jargons so does little to add to a casual reader's understanding. Nergaal (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: split geography section into its own template

As noted by many contributors, this template has ballooned to an unwieldy size. While it is nice to have a synoptic view of all Mars-related topics, it looks like we know too much about Mars for this to be practical. The geography section is overly dominant and too detailed for comfort. As some others have suggested, I would !vote in favor of splitting out the geography into a new navbox Template:Geography of Mars. Then, interested editors can refine the main Mars navbox and the geography navbox independently from each other: the Mars navbox can keep the essential notions of Mars geography to help readers learn and discover, while the detailed geography navbox can satisfy the appetite for detail. Can we get consensus on this step? — JFG ^talk 07:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Also, if there is a link to a list, do not include all listed items in the template. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, also BatteryIncluded's additional suggestion. --JorisvS (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems ok to me atm as well - perhaps first posting a proof of concept template(s) (or equivalent) here before implementing may be helpful? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Moreover, majority of the listed features can not be placed even in a special geographic template because of complete lack of notability. If anybody wants to make a template with craters (mountains, canyons etc.), he should keep in mind that there are more than 1000 named craters on Mars and about 300 of them have pages in enwiki, so a clear cut-off criterion is required. Stas (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Also "Spacecraft" sections is covered by navbox {{Mars spacecraft}} already. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done – A bit late, but thankfully there is no deadline. Forked out most of the cruft to a new {{Geography of Mars}} navbox. I have applied it on Eridania Lake as a test. If people like it, we can replace {{Mars}} with that one in hundreds of geography articles. Comments welcome! — JFG ^talk 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: FWIW - Thank you *very much* for the new {{Geography of Mars}} template - the new template seems excellent - a worthy and useful supplement to the original {{Mars}} template imo - several possible considerations => add a link from the new {{Geography of Mars}} template to the original {{Mars}} template - and as well - add a link from the original {{Mars}} template to the new {{Geography of Mars}} template - in any case - Thanks again for your efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, the cleaning was really needed. Some more thoughts:

• some features in the section "Regions" still seem to be insufficiently notable/significant. Iani Chaos, Ultimi Scopuli, Sinus Meridiani, Cydonia seem to have rather local, not global significance (at least, they seem to be less significant than e.g. Hellas Planitia or Valles Marineris, which are not included). Cerberus Hemisphere is a strange thing at all; the corresponding article has no sources and it is unclear even why (and by whom) this "hemisphere" is marked out as a separate entity;
• it would be more logical to move concrete features (North Polar Basin, Tharsis bulge) from section "Geology" to "Regions", and types of features (Undae) from "Regions" to "Geology";
• Template:Geography of Mars still has the problem which I mentioned: random selection of the features and heaps of completely unnotable ones. I propose to leave 10-20 biggest features of each kind (mountain systems, plains, craters etc.; sizes of all of them are accessible in Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature). The same problem is in Template:Mercury (planet). Stas (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestions; let's move this discussion to Template_Talk:Geography of Mars. — JFG ^talk 09:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for addressing the Mars navbar and creating new navbars for is planetary geology. Bravo! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drbogdan, Stas000D, and BatteryIncluded: My pleasure. Appreciate your thanks. — JFG ^talk 09:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments

 Done @JFG, Stas000D, and BatteryIncluded: FWIW - may wish to discuss this issue further at the newly created talk-page => "Template talk:Geography of Mars" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a work in progress, in the right direction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Added a "(More details) link" from the "Geography" section of the "{{Mars}}" template => to the newly created "{{Geography of Mars}}" template - as follows => "({ {small|[ [Template:Geography of Mars|More details]]}})" - maybe better? - and maybe no longer necessary to replace the present "{{Mars}}" template already added to various Mars-related articles with the new "{{Geography of Mars}}" template after all? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please note that we should not be linking to other templates from within navboxes. Navboxes are for linking between related articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: split off Exploration section

We have a dedicated template for Mars exploration called {{Mars spacecraft}}, whose contents are mostly duplicated here. Additionally, a lot of articles include both navboxes, which is heavy and unnecessary. Therefore I would suggest removing most of the section on Mars exploration from the generic {{Mars}} template, which should focus on characteristics of the planet, not its robotic visitors. A few generic concepts about the exploration of Mars should be kept here, e.g. keeping the "Concepts" and "Advocacy" subsections of the "Exploration" section, and including a link to the List of Mars missions. — JFG ^talk 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - the Mars template is too large and {{Mars spacecraft}} should be THE template listing the exploration missions. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think this template is too large, and Exploration belongs to {{Mars spacecraft}}. Any additional support to delete that portion from this template? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded)

 Done, I made the split. Enjoy. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice job, and a powerful implementation and follow up. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the intended scope of this navbox?

I have been looking at this navbox and the {{Geography of Mars}} navbox, and have not been able to work out why some links are listed on one, others listed on the others, and some listed on both. Is there a defined scope, and if so, what is it? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)