Template talk:Cite Gaia DR2

Online catalog bibcode

This reference is still show as a preprint/inprep only, but now that Simbad has integrated the data there is this ADS document with a bibcode. Not sure whether it is worth using this. Watch this space for probable radical suggestions in the next few days ... Lithopsian (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put something in the sandbox. Check this out. A little custom, but shoehorned both bibcodes in. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown, A. G. A.; et al. (Gaia Collaboration) (April 2018). "Gaia Data Release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties". Astronomy & Astrophysics. arXiv:1804.09365. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051. Bibcode:2018arXiv180409365G. Bibcode:2018yCat.1345....0G. Gaia DR2 record for this source at VizieR.

I don't think it's particularly useful to link to separate Bibcodes for the paper and the VizieR copy of the data - that just causes confusion rather than helping readers. We already have a facility to link directly to the relevant entry at VizieR. Modest Genius ^talk 13:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The other changes I was expecting stem from User:Agarciasoto18 and their reading of the Gaia citation instructions. However, Agarciasoto18 has gone quiet and may have completed the work they were paid for. Wikipedia should probably still try to follow those instructions to the extent that it is practicable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General question about template name

DR2 just means "data release 2", which is not specific or unique to Gaia, and there are other big surveys with multiple data releases that have had or will have a DR2, for example SDSS DR2, the Catalina Survey DR2, or the future DES DR2. For purposes of keeping this clear and unambiguous, would it perhaps be better to use "Cite GaiaDR2" instead of just "Cite DR2"? Aldebarium (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite Gaia DR2}} would make more sense. Modest Genius ^talk 10:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. If no objection is raised then I think WP:RMUM applies; otherwise it could be taken to WP:REQMOVE. Praemonitus (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite Gaia DR2}} certainly wouldn't be too onerous, but what happens to the 100+ articles using the existing {{Cite DR2}}. It presumably continues to exist as a redirect and would continue to be used, so have we gained anything? Or does the old template just get nixed? Is there such a thing as a template dab page? Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian, sorry I didn't see your response. "Cite DR2" would simply be a redirect, and "Cite Gaia DR2" would act as a standardised dab name. It would be exceptionally easy to change the existing instances of "Cite DR2" to the new name. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this suggestion again: if this change would be easy to make, would someone be willing to do it? (I don't know how.) I agree that "Cite Gaia DR2" would be the best way to go, and the sooner the better. Aldebarium (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the instructions at WP:REQMOVE. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even need a requested move? I haven't tried but think I may be able to do the rename myself. Just not sure about the implications with redirects, transclusions, etc. It would be helpful to change all the existing articles to use any new name directly, after all it is only really worth doing if {{Cite DR2}} is then available for other uses. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the support has been unanimous, this surely qualifies as 'uncontroversial' for WP:RMNOT. Just do it. {{Cite DR2}} can be left as a redirect for now, until such point as someone wants to use it for something else. Modest Genius ^talk 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Done. Hope I didn't break the world. Lithopsian (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK- thanks! Aldebarium (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation at Template:Cite DR2/doc hasn't shifted over. Otherwise looks good. Modest Genius ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful for that doc page to include a note saying that the template was originally "Cite DR2" but was changed to "Cite Gaia DR2" to avoid ambiguity, and that "Cite DR2" is now deprecated (but still functions as a redirect)? Aldebarium (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the /doc page. I see no real reason to mention the move in the documentation. There should never be a reason for anyone to use the "Cite DR2" name again in the future: since this title has been disambiguated, all other similar templates should also use disambiguation as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the new mode field

This template can now be instructed to pass a mode field to the underlying citation template to format as cs1 or cs2. However, mode=cs2 produces a citation with no trailing punctuation, which is followed immediately in this template by a VizieR link. Despite the cs2 mode, we should probably have some punctuation between the citation itself and the VizieR link. A full stop? Lithopsian (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's little benefit in adding a 'postscript' option. Praemonitus (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: if you add a parameter, please at least update the documentation to say what it does. Is this even worth fixing, rather than simply reverting? Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

|mode=cs1/2 is the same as in CS1/2 templates. Feel free to add the documentation, I added it to fix article that had a mix of CS1 and CS2 styles because of the lack of support for this parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with leading space on the source field

If the source ID is specific with leading whitespace for example {{Cite Gaia DR2 | 5372587514128271232}}, then the resulting url is messed up. Instead of the source ID becoming part of the url, it becomes the visible text for the url link. I have edited the template to trim leading (and following) whitespace. This fixes the problem, and I don't see any problems caused by doing it, but shout out if something breaks. See also Template:Cite Gaia EDR3. Lithopsian (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]