Great new template! I'm fairly incompetent at template syntax, but have made a slight tweak. Should it have a subscription only note, as Template:ODNBweb has? Dsp13 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I suppose it should. Same would go for Template:Crockford DBD 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't broken this templates links (they redirect), but we could choose to implement either their new urls e.g. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-282438 or DOI links e.g. https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.282438 DBD 18:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DBD: I've added digital object identifiers as a parameter to this template, although sadly, many of these new DOIs appear to be broken. While your example above (doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.282438) works, many do not. As of 13 December 2017 for example, Keith Bevens entry at:

http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-289275 uses a broken doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.289275

I've notified CrossRef of a handful of these via http://www.crossref.org/DOIComplaint, but there appear to be many more.

Thankfully though, the http://www.ukwhoswho.com site does show a preview of the articles for users that "do not currently have access to this article" which makes some Wikipedia:Verifiability possible for users outside the paywall (subscription required). Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change to put Who's Who and Who Was Who into italics, as is normal for book titles. It seems to work, but if I have upset any applecarts inadvertently then please do feel free to undo (and explain so I can avoid making the same mistake again). DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]