Template talk:Cite Gaia DR3

this template needs changes
Gaia DR3 is not a journal so as a base template isn't correct. The 'add-on' link: "Gaia EDR3 record for this source at VizieR." is meaningless because it does not say what 'this source' is. Worse, for those who consume citations through the metadata, there is no link 'this source' because it is linked outside of the citation template.

Were it up to me, I would:
 * change to
 * require source (maps to entry)
 * link the source name with entry-url in the rendering
 * add a named alias for  – perhaps record-id
 * use Gaia DR3 Part 1. Main source
 * use VizieR Online Data Catalog
 * add 10.26093/cds/vizier.1355 and free
 * is May 2022 correct? the page at the doi link suggests June is the correct date; see

So, the template in article space would look something like this:

Since there is only one page-watcher, pinging Editors Lithopsian and 400Weir.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm probably the watcher since I created the template. Although Gaia DR3 is not a journal, there are associated journal papers, although the one we should be citing has not yet been published.  See template:Cite Gaia EDR3 for the equivalent template for EDR3.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you are saying that the 55-ish articles that use should not be using that template and should instead be using ?  If that is the case then why does this template exist?  Apparently there are editors who find that this template meets their needs.  If this template is useful to those editors, it should be corrected as I have described above.  If this template should not be used, as I think you are suggesting, then it should go to WP:TFD and be replaced in article space with  or some other more appropriate template, shouldn't it?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. Gaia Early Data Release 3 (EDR3) and Gaia Data Release 3 (DR3) are separate datasets and have their own citation papers, and databases.  No doubt you could do it all in one template, but I think it would just be asking for users to get it wrong, and you'd probably end up coding three different citations anyway.  For completeness, see also Cite Gaia DR2, and there will be at least one more Gaia dataset in the future.  They're written as templates precisely so we can tweak them if necessary without having to edit thousands of articles.  Feel free to tweak, although as mentioned, the paper to be cited is still in prep.  Here are the official acknowledgement and citation instructions from Gaia.  You can see we have a rather minimal version of that, adapted for Wikipedia purposes.  Although not involved in this template so far, I'm going to ping Headbomb who can probably add something to the discussion.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Harvard University ADS is where I got the citation. The actual journal is still in preparation so there is no official citation yet. I will correct it as soon as the official one comes out.

P.S.: If you have issues with this one, revert back to the old one User:Lithopsian initially put. Speed doesn&#39;t always mean quality. (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting back to any older version of will not fix the issues of add-on links and metadata that I described.  If this template is to be kept, a rewrite is in order.  Also,  suffers from the same add-on link and metadata problems so it too should be rewritten.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)