wpoa
Header template at Wikisource does not handle journal article metadata properly
Year does not display, no field for DOI, unclear handling of issues...
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Header
Example articles in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Journal_articles .
I asked: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Header&oldid=4909895#Header_for_journal_articles .
Looks like the best way to go about that is to design an expanded {{header}} template that includes the missing info (e.g. DOI).
Yes, OK, I get that. @wrought is a template wizard and can even advertise the books to google's schema-search while he's in there
I'd just note that maybe a more systematic approach would be called for. I hesitate to leave a comment on the talk page there, but it seems to me that there's a lot of overlap between what the header template should be, and a general-purpose citation template. I mean, it's all bibliographic data to identifiy a particular work, right? Anyway, just thinking out loud ...
I'm thinking something like a "full citation" would be excellent, that way it can also be used to copy+paste for reference out of the copy available on wikisource. Here's an example from PLOS ONE:
Small-Area Estimation of the Probability of Toxocariasis in New York City Based on Sociodemographic Neighborhood Composition Walsh MG, Haseeb MA (2014) Small-Area Estimation of the Probability of Toxocariasis in New York City Based on Sociodemographic Neighborhood Composition. PLoS ONE 9(6): e99303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099303
This could be possibly by copying or using something like [Template:Cite doi/10.1371.2Fjournal.pone.0010676](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite doi/10.1371.2Fjournal.pone.0010676) or perhaps incorporating a WikiData item.
In the mean time, yes, extending {{header}} would be a less time-intensive, scoped solution for now. Adding DOI is the minimum requirement, what else would be absolutely critical?
I don't think it's a priority right now, but for reference here's one spec for scholarly article microdata: http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle. The scheme is not very expressive.
Is the header template the only place to include bibliographic metadata? I'd think PMID, PMCID would also be essential, plus the basic journal, volume, issue, first-page, last-page.
@Klortho fair enough, indeed I think a full copy+past-able citation is best. For our purposes, we are matching all items on DOI, so the DOI gives us a key at the very least.
Perhaps our thread here underscores that bibliographic management is critical to the growing body of wikisource in general. Wikidata is an ideal location for the management and interwiki display and usage of such information.
Yes, no argument. Perhaps, following the principle of DRY, it would be better to only include the DOI, and not repeat all the other info, since it creates a maintenance point (what to do if the metadata in two different repositories doesn't match?) On the other hand, a link back to PMC would be nice. (And I say that not just because I work there -- there might be discrepancies for a long time to come, and it would be nice if the reader could refer back to the version that this copy derived from).
I agree we should make it clear where precisely our copy of an article comes from, so for imports from PMC, the DOI should be mentioned along with the PMCID.
This should be fixed before or during the Wikimania Hackathon: https://github.com/wpoa/OA-signalling/issues/101 .