Template talk:Cite Grove/Archive 1

Dates
I don't know much about templates, but is there a way to link dates within the template, so that the order can be changed according to user preferences? (I know Grove says the order, but still). Makemi 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked through all of Wikimedia:Template, and it looks like the template mechanism is very basic: simple text replacement. It's pretty much just what you put into the template comes out the same way, so I guess not, sorry. -Sesquialtera II 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've done it. If it seems broken somehow (or too annoying) let me know. I'll start adding it to appropriate articles. I think it's a great tool, so good job. Makemi 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you meant by linking dates. I'm not sure that's really necessary - normally, linked seem to be more for "what else important happened on this day", implying that the event in question was historically important - which it might be hard to make a case for the accessing of Grove Online by a writer.


 * If, for some reason, you accessed the site on Bach's birthday, and are using it for the Bach article, then it might be fun to link the date. But, you could do that anyways - templates will allow you to pass links to them, so you could say  and that would have the same effect as your template above.  So, I still prefer the three-argument version to separating the day/month and year. -Sesquialtera II 16:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A big reason that people link dates is that even the English Wikipedia is used internationally, and there are different standards for the order of dates (Day/Month/year, Month/year/day, etc.), and when you go into your preferences you can set how you want to see dates. This only works when the dates are linked. It's useful because then people don't go around changing date, or getting confused if the dates are in mm/dd/yy format. So I think even for references it's useful to link the dates. Makemi 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For some reason it occurred to me that it wasn't necessary for us to type in the date every time for this, but instead we could put the templates for the current month/day/year within this template, and it would save a tiny bit of time and effort. The only thing is that in order for it to work correctly, the template would have to be subst'd every time, and in addition subst'ing templates doesn't seem to work within the system. I'd be happy to go around fixing these up if there are no objections. The only objection I see is that it will look messier on the editing screen if all the references are written out in full, but for me I still prefer to put the current time and date within the template. Any thoughts? Mak (talk)  04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it. I hope you guys like it. It doesn't seem to be broken. Now you only have to fill in article title and author. Mak (talk)  22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Link
Wouldn't this template be improved by actually providing a link direct to the article, or is there some reason not to do this? David Underdown 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Music Online
Grove Online has been integrated into Oxford Music Online. Oxford now seems to prefer citations to refer to "Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online." rather than the current "Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy". The website has also moved, although grovemusic.com forwards to the new oxfordmusic.com. Should the current template be changed--since the old standalone Grove Music Online no longer exists--or should some new template be created? Conkle (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oxford/Grove Music Online provide these citation templates (e.g. for Richard Mills):


 * MLA
 * Warren A. Bebbington. "Mills, Richard." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 21 Aug. 2008
 * .


 * Chicago
 * Warren A. Bebbington. "Mills, Richard." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
 * http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43455 (accessed August 21, 2008).


 * I have no experience whatsoever in template coding, but I think a template GroveOxford should produce output along these lines:


 * Warren A. Bebbington. "Mills, Richard." (subscription access) In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (accessed 2008-08-21).


 * where the date is generated via Date by writing: 2008-08-21.


 * Where can one ask for such a template to be written? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of date
This template is seriously out of date. Laura Macy has not been the editor of Grove Online since September 2009, when Deane L. Root assumed the post. Also, since about 2008 updated versions of articles have been given new publication dates, and there is no provision for adding thes date in the present template format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This template has many deficiencies; I think the best course of action is to replace it with some sensible manual citation wherever necessary and discontinue its use. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Upgrades
I've made this template call Cite web, and added an optional URL parameter. Further improvements should be made, such as separate parameters for the author's first name (or initial) and making the URL mandatory, but that will mean that changes to the existing transclusions are required. Since these are currently few in number, it would be good to such improvements in place, before further deployments. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Migrate, author enumeration, or move authors to the end?
I'm currently working through Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter and deciding on how best to deal with the Grove family of templates, which all most put the 2nd unnamed parameters into authors.

Of GroveOnline's 655 transclusions:
 * ~33 have no author
 * ~456 have 1 author
 * 11 have 1 author et al.
 * ~143 have 2 authors
 * 7 have 3 authors
 * 2 have 4 authors
 * 2 have 5 authors
 * 1 has 8 authors

I see 3 options, in order of decreasing disruption to the current template:
 * 1) Migrate directly to CS1 instead of wrapping it, as suggested by  above (almost 3.5 years ago).
 * 2) Convert the template from unnamed parameters to requiring only named parameters, as suggested by  above (almost 2 years ago).
 * 3) Move authors to the end of the template as unnamed parameters, preserving the template's present style, and have the template recognize up to 9 additional authors (more than enough) beyond the first. The template (not the template call) would then enumerate them into author through author10.

I prefer #1 first, since it removes the likelihood of mis-referencing "newer" Grove Online articles.

I prefer #2 as an alternative since it's more intuitive than #3, would use the same structure as a typical CS1 template call (since this wraps Cite encyclopedia), and is easier to machine check & search once completed. I did something similar to this for the IUCN family of templates (expanded the recognized parameters), and can do the same here.

I don't like #3 since it's just kicking the can down the road for someone else to eventually perform either #1 or #2.

Pinging a few others for input that have made several edits to the template:, , &. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This would (could) also apply to NewGroveJazz2002, NewGrove2001, NewGrove1980, Cite Grove1900, & Grove1900, which have less than about 100 mainspace transclusions each, and have either non-existent or barely-used talk pages. I'll post a message to each pointing to here for centralized discussion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cite Grove1900 and Grove1900 already required named parameters, and now so do NewGroveJazz2002, NewGrove2001, and NewGrove1980. Hyacinth (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , nice work. I'll take that as a vote for #2, which now seems uncontroversial since that would bring GroveOnline up to par with the other templates. I'll migrate the ~655 transclusions over the next few days, linking back to this discussion.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * NewGroveJazz2002, NewGrove2001, and NewGrove1980 all use Cite book rather than Cite encyclopedia (and thus require "chapter" rather than "article"). Hyacinth (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cite encyclopedia seems to handle title differently than article. When I changed title to article in the sandbox, it introduced a "URL–wikilink conflict" citation error when url is populated (you'll have to undo my sandbox revision if you want to see the title version). Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc groups article with chapter in the COinS section, but then states Aliases: title, article in the Title section, which is inconsistent, so something's either wrong or the doc needs updating. Since title is safe, I'm going to migrate GroveOnline calls to use title. After I'm done I'll followup with the CS1/2 folks about this.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

no ref= parameter?
Am I mistaken, or is there no access to a ref=  parameter? As for example in Ludwig van Beethoven, the relevant Notes say "Grove Online" but don't link to anything in the References, and the relevant reference displays as " Kerman, Joseph; Tyson, Alan; Burnham, Scott G." with a subsequent link to the Wikipedia Grove article.. that would be quite confusing to many who are trying to find the citation... but with a ref= para we could use ref=CITEREFGrove_online, use Grove Online in the body text as, and I believe everything would look the same but would link up... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternate approach to Grove templates (feedback and discussion wanted!)
Hi all. Going to ping indiscriminately here, to people who may be interested or whose input I would appreciate. Sorry for the noise!

I would appreciate if you'd have a look and comment on this!

So, anyways… I had a need for some functionality in this template (same need as Lingzhi above, I think), but in attempting to modify it I ran into a brick wall fast (Mediawiki template syntax is a black art you attempt at peril of your sanity, to say nothing of your immortal soul!). So instead I petitioned the fine folks over at Help talk:Citation Style 1 for a better solution, and they (Trappist the monk mainly) came through in spectacular style. There's now a new sub-module of Module:Citation/CS1 at Module:Citation/CS1/Wrapper generic wrapper template at Module:Template wrapper that makes it easy to create templates that wrap the CS1 modules (,, , etc.) that by default support all the core parameters (without having to code explicit support for them).

Thus, I have created a new family of Grove citation modules templates based on this approach:
 * —equivalent to
 * —equivalent to
 * —equivalent to
 * —equivalent to
 * —equivalent to

All of them replicate the main citation features of the original templates, while also supporting all the CS1 parameters (including cs2!), and consistently employing as its core template. They do not replicate the special features of the original Grove templates (e.g. can link to the article on Wikisource and output the Wikisource logo in front of the citation), however these can be added afterwards if they're needed / wanted.

All the new templates have associated testcases, and a sandbox. The sandbox is currently populated with the code from the equivalent original module, so that the test cases will compare the original template's output with the new template (once the new modules are modified their sandboxes will change and thus also what the tests compare against) For those not familiar with the details of templates on MW, you can find links to a template's sandbox and testcases at the very bottom of its documentation page.

I would very much like feedback on whether this approach is worthwhile. I obviously think it is a better approach, but would like the perspective of the community surrounding the original family of templates. Further, I would like feedback on the usage and output of the new templates, and whether it's fit for purpose. Also, the special features (link to WS etc.) of the original templates and whether it's actually needed. If all the new templates are positively received, my proposal would be that they replace the originals; possibly by simply redirecting the originals to these equivalents.

Meanwhile, here are some artificial (not real data) demos of the new templates: undefined
 * cite Grove

undefined
 * cite Grove 1900

undefined
 * cite Grove 1980

undefined
 * cite Grove 2001

undefined
 * cite Grove Jazz

In any case: these scratched an itch I had, and hopefully will be useful to the wider community. All feedback would be very welcome! Cheers, --Xover (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "I have created a new family of Grove citation modules " It appears that you have created a new family of Grove citation templates. I feel these would be better merged into one, so that a user would type, say,  or   or suchlike. It's also superfluous to have two templates for each volume so they need to be merged that way, also (or at least).  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I considered going the route of having a parameter to set the edition cited, but it would have made them behave differently from the "core" citation modules, and would have required more hairy template logic to maintain. Having separate templates for each specific source is cheap, so long as they are as simple as these are. But I agree that there shouldn't be two sets of Grove templates: if the community ends up rejecting these new templates I will nominate them for deletion. And as mentioned above, if the community lands on the side of these new templates, my suggestion is that the original templates be phased out (how, specifically, is yet to be determined). --Xover (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
(and everyone else) I would appreciate feedback (even if it's "Don't care" or "I have no opinion") on the above. Given the relatively low number of comments, I would also appreciate suggestions for WikiProjects (or other venues) for which this would be of interest and where it might be appropriate to solicit feedback (an community-wide RFC seems excessive for this purpose). --Xover (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My only comment is that every example citation above produces a local error (, à la User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). Since I only see harv in the first example, I can only assume that the new templates hard code this, which shouldn't be done.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting! All harv does is put a linkable identifier in the HTML so that short citations can link to it. It doesn't change the rendered citation in any way. If you're seeing an error message then you're running the HarvErrors script, and it flags this as an "error" because the script is intended to help you detect when you've typoed a short reference (citing Simth 2008 instead of Smith 2008); not because there is anything wrong with the full reference. I have a copy of that script that's even more aggressive, warning about almost every reference that doesn't strictly conform to the style it implements (and I plan to add more eventually; feel free to use it if you like. User:Xover/HarvErrors.js). In any case, the default in these new modules is easily overridden: if you need to you can set CustomIDScheme and it will override the default. And if you really need to make it unlinkable, you can set unset or none to force it to be treated as empty (in reality you're getting the default from Module:Citation/CS1, but these templates will no longer be in the loop). --Xover (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor
Why does this template produce "In Deane L. Root (ed.)." for all entries? He's Editor in Chief, but the online Grove is now an amalgamation of various volumes, including ones edited by others. The oxfordmusiconline website itself doesn't include any editor's name when it displays the recommended citation (click on the pen icon to see this). I think that crediting Root as editor for everything because he's EinC isn't necessary or accurate. Would it be better to cut this bit? EddieHugh (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He's listed at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/grove-music-online-9780333913987 -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, he's EinC, but even Grove itself doesn't recommend including his name in citations, and he wasn't editor for a lot of the content when it was created, so what's the rationale for including him? I'm asking because I'd like to use this template but don't, and this is one of the reasons why. EddieHugh (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. WP:SOFIXIT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone tells me how to do it and how to check that it's been done without causing any problems, then I'll be happy to. As is usual on Wikipedia, even finding all of the information required to do something is difficult. EddieHugh (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit the template page and, in the Preview page with this template box add this text:
 * then in the template code, delete this line:
 * click the Show preview button next to the Preview page with this template. You should see that the rendered templates on the ~/doc page no longer show Root as editor.
 * If you don't see any problems, write an appropriate edit summary and click the Publish changes button.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear explanation. It's done; I'll wait a while to see if there are any undesirable consequences. EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't see any problems, write an appropriate edit summary and click the Publish changes button.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear explanation. It's done; I'll wait a while to see if there are any undesirable consequences. EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need the subscription required template when we have the url-access parameter?
When url is specified, this template already does subscription. Shall we not show Subscription required in such cases, as it looks like a duplication?--ネイ (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--ネイ (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Template:cite Grove
There is another template which seems to support citations to the same reference. It is. I propose that this template and  are merged.

This template was created in 2006 while seems to be a fork of this template it was created in 2017 by user:Xover with the comment "first version. inspired by, but not directly based on, Template:GroveOnline".

The has the advantage that the template code has been simplified by user:Trappist the monk converting it to use the "generic wrapper module" (Revision as of 11:11, 13 February 2018).

I propose that the same wrapper is placed around this template. This will allow most of the present code to be replaced making the template easier to understand -- user:Trappist the monk are you willing to do that?

Once that has been done I propose that this template is moved to as the other is a content fork of this template and I see no point in having two. The move will preserve the history of this older template. I think that the move ought to be made because usually citation templates start with the word "Cite ..." and only start with the name if the citation template generates a attribution string--for example see:
 * — Use for citations where the Grove1900 is text summarised but not copied
 * — places an attribution string before the citation when the Grove1900 text is copied into the Wikipedia article

-- PBS (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and testcases. Because the built-in url is a link to doi.org, I did not keep that.  Instead, when   has a value, the sandbox populates a doi parameter (testcases 3 & 4).  I retained the positional parameters even though they are not documented.  Were it up to me, I would remove the positional parameters (  would likely become id).
 * This template differs from . This template is specifically for the online edition; not clear if  is supposed to be online-specific or is intended to support both print and online editions.  If  is to be merged with this template, is it important to maintain the distinction?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I suspect that like the same template could be used for both. Indeed looking through the listing of links and selecting a random sample next to none of them used unnamed parameters and nearly all of them do not include a url. However some of the more recent like "Kurt Gudewill" (created  14:38, 24 May 2020‎) do make use of the url parameter:


 * Others link "Rudolf Stephan" (created 17 December 2019‎) have problems with the syntax:


 * This article "Rosa Morandi" has the distinction of including GroveOnline with no url or doi and the the same citations is also added using to include the doi details!


 * So lets look at cleaning up the instances that use this template. I am going to add a number of maintenance categories to this template . Once we have that data we will know exactly how much need cleaning up and have a category to feed in to AWB to do things like converting unnamed parameters to name ones.
 * -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I created some maintenance categories:
 * Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template (725 P)
 * category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a url parameter‎ (58 P)
 * category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with an unnamed parameter‎ (1 P)
 * category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template without a url parameter‎ (667 P)
 * The number of articles incorporating the template is currently 725 which is the same as the number of articles that AWB finds. There were 3 articles with one of more unnamed parameters. I fixed two of them. Early music revival was very old and used 5 parameters (see version of the template as of 08:34, 20 August 2012), Siroe (Metastasio) was just with the wrong value in the unnamed parameter and it was not seen by the current code as the url was populated ( (so I fixed it) ). The last one Rudolf Stephan was broken. It had an unnamed parameter that was the title and the "id" was in a named parameter "|online=..." so I mended parameters, it is now the only instance that uses an unamed parameter as part of the url (and can be fixed as you think fit eg with "id="). At the moment as you can see there are only 58 instances that have a url and 667 that do not.
 * So I see not reason not to implement the "id=" solution as that makes it similar to the ODNB (another Oxford publication). I would take it further and if an "id=" is given link via the doi, as is done with, rather than the url (which can be kept for those entries that are not standard, or for those who editors who prefer to use the url parameter).
 * Given so few have a url I see no reason for not merging the two templates.
 * I also think it a good idea if a date of publication could be added as a default with the option to override.
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

After investigating the use of doi I understand that |doi-access= can only be set to "free" as there is an assumption that doi's web pages default to subscription. This means that we have the unusual situation that we have eye candy for a url link to a web page as a doi link to the same page does not.

1. So I suggest that we remove the url-access parameter (thoughts?)

The second oddity is that |access-date= can only be set for a url but not for a doi although they link to the same webpage. So I investigated the web site (I have a library subsicption). The pages have dates on them eg https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000042890 starts: ":Indonesia (Bahasa Indon. Republik Indonesia)unlocked


 * Philip Yampolsky, Dr Sumarsam, Lisa Gold, Tilman Seebass, Benjamin Brinner, Michael Crawford, Simon Cook, Matthew Isaac Cohen, Marc Perlman, Virginia Gorlinski, Margaret J. Kartomi, Christopher Basile, R. Anderson Sutton and Franki Raden


 * https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42890
 * Published in print: 20 January 2001 Published online: 2001


 * updated and revised, 1 July 2014; updated and revised, 25 July 2013; updated and revised, 1 July 2014"

2. So editors should be encouraged to add a date= and not an access-date=. As the default seems to be 2001 I suggest that date is set to that by default and, as it covers print and none print. (thoughts?) -- PBS (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that url-access should be removed. Most, if not all, Grove articles are behind the paywall so the linked title, which readers presume to be free-to-read, should be marked as  free-to-read.  If there are cases where an online Grove article is free-to-read or the url points to a legitimate copy of a Grove article that is free-to-read then the paywall icon can be suppressed using unset:
 * cf without unset:
 * No objection to adding 2001
 * should be rewritten as:
 * or
 * In the current sandbox, there are two access-date presets. Since the template does not preset url, the access-date presets can (should) be removed.
 * Also, this:
 * should be changed to:
 * {{code|lang=moin| |doi={{#if:{{{id|}}}|10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.{{trim|{{{id|}}}}} }}
 * Any parameter provided from the template call in an article always overrides presets established in the template.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with any of the coding changes you suggest (as they were either my misunderstanding or an error). My issue is that we will have an inconsistency:
 * In the current sandbox, there are two access-date presets. Since the template does not preset url, the access-date presets can (should) be removed.
 * Also, this:
 * should be changed to:
 * {{code|lang=moin| |doi={{#if:{{{id|}}}|10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.{{trim|{{{id|}}}}} }}
 * Any parameter provided from the template call in an article always overrides presets established in the template.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with any of the coding changes you suggest (as they were either my misunderstanding or an error). My issue is that we will have an inconsistency:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with any of the coding changes you suggest (as they were either my misunderstanding or an error). My issue is that we will have an inconsistency:

{{GroveOnline/sandbox |title=Indonesia |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42890}}
 * {{GroveOnline/sandbox |title=Indonesia |url=https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000042890}}
 * {{GroveOnline/sandbox |title=Indonesia |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42890}}
 * One has the eye candy the other does not and both of the links need a subscription to access them (as they link to the same place). One has to understand a lot about the internal logic of the templates to understand the reason for this difference. I think for consistency it would be better if all formats including a link had an indicator that the pages need a subscription, or none of them.


 * A access date only works for url. if doi is used it is broken

{{GroveOnline/sandbox |access-date=1 January 2019 |title=Indonesia |url=https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000042890}} {{GroveOnline/sandbox |access-date=1 January 2019 |title=Indonesia |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42890}}
 * {{GroveOnline/sandbox |access-date=1 January 2019 |title=Indonesia |url=https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000042890}}
 * {{GroveOnline/sandbox |access-date=1 January 2019 |title=Indonesia |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42890}}
 * This is another inconsistency which is why I suggest that date is used defaulting to 2001. Presumably anyone adding a link to the article will be able to change that to whatever is the most recent date, and this will remove the inconsistency from the use of |access-date.
 * In point of fact the doi is the better format as it is guaranteed not to change, while the url could be altered at any time, which means running a bot/AWB to fix them, so I think that people who use this template ought to be encouraged to use the id= parameter (which mean doi). -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This template, as it is currently written, utilizes cs1|2. When used in an article alongside cs1|2 templates, this template should not render differently from adjacent cs1|2 templates.  In cs1|2, named identifiers (doi, etc) are presumed to lie behind a paywall.  Because of that presumption and to avoid a sea-of-red access icons (Lock-red-alt-2.svg), identifier links do not render access icons except when, contrary to the norm, the link is to a free-to-read source: {{para|doi-access|free}} → Lock-green.svg.  If this template creates a value for {{para|doi}}, to be consistent with cs1|2, the resulting identifier link via doi.org should render in the same way that a {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}} template, using the same parameter values, would render.
 * Readers expect that a linked title ("Indonesia" in your examples) links to a free-to-read copy of the source. A title that links to a paywall or registration barrier is a disservice to our readers when the expectation of a free-to-read source is not fulfilled.  The access icon is not {{tq|eye candy}} but, serves to alert readers that the linked source is not free-to-read.
 * I did write: {{tq|Since the template does not preset url, the access-date presets can (should) be removed.}} I should probably have omitted that line when I wrote the Module:Template wrapper version because editors who provide a {{para|url}} can at the same time add access-date if they believe it is necessary to do so.  It is not clear to me why you changed that particular line from:
 * {{code |lang=moin | |access-date={{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{access-date|}}}|}} }}
 * to:
 * {{code |lang=moin | |access-date={{#if:{{{url|}}}{{{id|}}}|{{{access-date|}}}| }} }}
 * I continue to believe that this line (in whichever form) should be removed from the sandbox template.
 * I do not understand how defaulting 2001 (to which I do not object) has anything to do with {{para|access-date}}. These are separate parameters that serve different purposes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At {{slink|Template talk:GroveOnline#Editor}}, it is mentioned that the online edition does not have a specific editor though (apparently) the print edition does. The sandbox should support that with
 * {{code| |editor-last={{#if:{{{url|}}}{{{doi|}}}{{{id|}}}||Root}} }}
 * {{code| |editor-first={{#if:{{{url|}}}{{{doi|}}}{{{id|}}}||Deane L.}} }}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At {{slink|Template talk:GroveOnline#Editor}}, it is mentioned that the online edition does not have a specific editor though (apparently) the print edition does. The sandbox should support that with
 * {{code| |editor-last={{#if:{{{url|}}}{{{doi|}}}{{{id|}}}||Root}} }}
 * {{code| |editor-first={{#if:{{{url|}}}{{{doi|}}}{{{id|}}}||Deane L.}} }}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am agnostic on the editor, but as the current includes the editor, it makes sense to include it.

I left the "id" in there simply so that I could test and demonstrate (above) that access-date does not work with out the url. Something that you are obviously aware, but others may not.

This is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of the standard templates, but just in passing: as the icons are not linked to an explanation of what they mean, I think they are eye candy as it makes the assumption that someone recognises them for what they are and understands the nuance difference between a click-able link under a title and a click-able link under a doi.

In this case consistency can be obtained (for url, doi and id) access by adding a {{tlx|subscription}} template postscript. Indeed like ODNB this is a case where UK public libraries often pay bulk subscriptions to this service, so it would make sense to use the same postscript subscription template as is used in the {{tlx|ODNBsub}} template.

If there is a date (when the Grove article was last edited) then there is no need for a acccess-date, so it can be removed (because if there is no date on the content of the url then it makes sense to add an access-date as it helps to identify the version if the url becomes dead or the page changes substantially). As there are currently ~60 pages that link to the site (without a date parameter) it makes sense to retain the access-date until they they all have dates.

-- PBS (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Trappist the monk I have added a variable date parameter to the sandbox which set will set origyear to 2001. This is because like the ODNB the articles may be updated with a new date (which is documented in the article). The code is not idiot proof as the date could be set to 2001 or before (but this is not real programming so I don't see need to error trap such things). Please make any additional changes you think appropriate and we can implement it (assuming no one has any objections). -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the editor preset from {{tlx|cite Grove}}; I removed the {{para|access-date}} preset as unnecessary (when present in an instantiation of the template, it passes through to {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}}); access icons have tool-tips to aid readers; I stand opposed to {{tlx|subscription}} or {{tlx|ODNBsub}} if the reason for them is consistency because none of the cs1|2 templates have native support for these annotation templates; it is not necessary to make the {{para|orig-year}} a conditional preset because cs1|2 ignores that parameter when neither of {{para|date}} and {{para|year}} are set:
 * → {{cite book |title=Title |orig-year=2001}}
 * I have tweaked that.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "I added the editor preset from cite Grove" – does that fit with the discussion and conclusion in "Editor", above? EddieHugh (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Without {{para|url}}, without {{para|doi}}, without id (from which the template creates a doi) the cited source is the on-line source.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the value in orig-year is a easy way to simplify the code! I have added "id" as a parameter to the current code. This allowed me to edit Rudolf Stephan which was the only article that used this template with an unnamed parameter. So when the new code is implemented it should not break any of the current usage. -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} I have been bold and put copied the sandpit script into the template. I have modified the categories.

I have been through the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a url parameter and added the date parameter for every article in there, removing the access-date parameter. There are a few Grove online articles, that have since been modified or published online, that were originally published in 1992 (eg João Pedro de Almeida Mota) as well as a couple in 1998 (again modified or republished online at a later date).

@User:Trappist the monk it seems that the orig-year parameter does not work as I expected, it is always displayed even when there is no date parameter. Is that what you expected?

-- PBS (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this:
 * presets {{para|date}} to  when {{para|date}} and {{para|year}} are not set, cs1|2 sees that {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}} has {{para|date|2001}} so it displays {{para|orig-year|2001}}.  Is there really a need for {{para|orig-year|2001}}?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Which is what I thought happened and why I put in:

|origyear={{#if:{{{date|}}}{{{year|}}}|2001}}
 * which I think would solve the problem. Although it would probably be better if it were written:

|orig-year={{{orig-year|{{#if:{{{date|}}}{{{year|}}}|2001}} }}}
 * To answer you question. In fact I think we need to think about this further as it turns out that in most cases the date for both is 2001. But in some cases the earliest date for the print publication can be earlier than 2001 (as I observed in my previous posting). -- PBS (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A detail I forgot to mention is that some articles were published after 2001 -- I have seen several that were published in 2002. -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer is not to set the date if there is a link to the internet, but set it to "2001" for non-internet artilces (as has been done for editor) -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A {{para|date}} preset can always be overridden by explicitly including {{para|date}} with a value in the template call. Why not just preset {{para|date|2001}} in the template?  When the Grove article date is different, the editor writing the template call includes the appropriate {{para|date|&lt;{{var|overriding date}}>}}?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Please make the changes removing a pre-set for orig-year and a default date of 2001 unless overwritten with an explicit value. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * done to live version.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have run an AWB script over all the instances in about 660 articles where there was no "url" parameter removing the "access-date" parameter and so removing the red warning message. -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * {{outdent}} What is going on here? Suddenly every article I edited referencing Grove online, which is hundreds of articles, is being altered by a bot run by PBS with a cryptic edit summary  Remove access-date from GroveOnline because there is no url paramter and possibly some other changes - what the hell does that mean? I am sure no ref had anything showing up in red when I edited the articles. I hate this kind of fussing around which adds masses of articles to my watchlist, clogging it up.Smeat75 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * is a wrapper template that wraps {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}}.
 * Take La traviata as an example. Before Editor PBS's edit, the {{tld|GroveOnline}} template call in La traviata looked like this:
 * In that template call, {{para|access-date|21 September 2018}} is meaningless because there is no {{para|url}} either explicitly provided in the template call or created by this template. When {{para|url}} is omitted or empty and when {{para|access-date}} is present and has an assigned value, {{tld|cite encyclopedia}} emits an {{error-small|{{para|access-date|plain=yes}} requires {{para|url|plain=yes}}}} error message.  That message can be seen in La traviata before PBS's edit.
 * The previous version of {{tld|GroveOnline}} had this:
 * What that means is that when {{para|url}} has a value, the value assigned to the GroveOnline template call's {{para|access-date}} is passed to {{tld|cite encyclopedia}} for rendering; when {{para|url}} is omitted or empty, any value assigned to {{para|access-date}} is not passed to {{tld|cite encyclopedia}}. The new version of this template passes {{para|access-date}} regardless of the state of {{para|url}}.  This is in keeping with how the native {{tld|cite encyclopedia}} and every other native cs1|2 template works.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to explain but that's still a lot of gobbledygook to me. I imagine I'm the one who added that cite to Grove in the Traviata article and it didn't  have anything in the refs showing up in red  when I did that. I maintain lots of the opera articles and look at them virtually  every day, none of them had anything in red in the notes a few days ago.As far as I can make out,  somebody decided to change the "cite Grove online" function somehow for reasons I can not make out, and now a bot has to correct the errors that change resulted in.  SO ANNOYING.Smeat75 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, you added {{tlx|GroveOnline}} to La traviata with {{diff|La_traviata|prev|860627598|this edit}}. Yep, the template has been updated.  Between the time of the update and the time of Editor PBS's awb edit, La traviata did display the {{error-small|{{para|access-date|plain=yes}} requires {{para|url|plain=yes}}}} error message.  I'm sorry that you are annoyed but I suspect that Editor PBS prevented a greater annoyance were it left to you to determine the cause of the error message and its remedy – especially if you maintain a long list of articles showing the error message.
 * Can I ask why you chose {{tld|GroveOnline}} without providing a link the online version of Grove?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I got access to Grove Music Online through the Wikipedia Library I was told it was a requirement of using it that it must be cited that way, which left a note saying "subscription required " that has now vanished.  I've started a report at WP:AN about this.Smeat75 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Link to the actual WP:AN discussion: {{slink|Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Grove_music_online}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you chose {{tld|GroveOnline}} without providing a link the online version of Grove?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I got access to Grove Music Online through the Wikipedia Library I was told it was a requirement of using it that it must be cited that way, which left a note saying "subscription required " that has now vanished.  I've started a report at WP:AN about this.Smeat75 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Link to the actual WP:AN discussion: {{slink|Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Grove_music_online}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the template with the older and longer history {{tlx|GroveOnline}} to which was a code fork of {{tlx|GroveOnline}}. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Year and date mismatch
@User:Trappist the monk if the parameter year is set to something other than 2001 the error message "" is displayed. Can you fix it? -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary? To override the 2001 preset, use &lt;date>.
 * In cs1|2 year is not a complete alias of date. year would have been deprecated and removed with day and month were it not needed for anchor ID disambiguation in templates using ymd-style dates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes it is nessary because I first saw it in the doc page, and I know that I saw articles with instances of the the template using it. If all it took was to run a script and fix them all once then it would be possible to ignore it, however for people used to using year in "cite book" etc they are going to have to investigate why this template differs. Leaving it as it is worse than leaving access-date to be silently ignored particularly as it is such a simple coding fix. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok done. All of the GroveOnline maintenance cats are now misnamed.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All renamed. I am waiting fore the servers to complete moving the articles to the new categories before I removed the old ones -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All renamed. I am waiting fore the servers to complete moving the articles to the new categories before I removed the old ones -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial reference produced
Hello, using this template without a url or dio it does not tell the reader where to find the article. You need one or the other to be specified, unless it is referring to a print version in which case it should have a page parameter. Keith D (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean doi.
 * Of course, an incomplete template is an incomplete template. The template can't fill-in missing information without it is much more clever than the editors who wrote or who have used the temple.  We could add some sort of error messages but, as you no-doubt-know, editors routinely ignore error messages.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did mean doi.
 * We should have some form of error messaging and tracking category so that this can be tracked and fixed. No doubt the messages will be ignored by most just as existing ones are. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a tracking category: "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template without a link parameter‎" (there are several more set up under Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template) -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now changed to tracking category: "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the Cite Grove template without a link parameter‎" (there are several more set up under Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the Cite Grove template) -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now changed to tracking category: "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the Cite Grove template without a link parameter‎" (there are several more set up under Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the Cite Grove template) -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors of the 2001 print edition
There seems to be some confusion (or at least I am confused) about the names of the editors for the print versions. Also the edition number (or lack of it) in the 2001 version of.

The current default (if no date is given) is to add is:
 * "Root, Deane L., ed. (2001)". "article name". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Oxford University Press.

However the template  display is:
 * Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell,  John (eds.). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan

Which is correct for both editors and publisher?

-- PBS (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The article The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians states:

"The second edition under this title (the seventh overall) was published in 2001, in 29 volumes. It was also made available by subscription on the internet in a service called Grove Music Online. It was again edited by Stanley Sadie, and the executive editor was John Tyrrell. ... The current editor-in-chief of Grove Music, the name given to the complete slate of print and online resources that encompass the Grove brand, is University of Pittsburgh professor Deane Root. He assumed the editorship in 2009. The dictionary, originally published by Macmillan, was sold in 2004 to Oxford University Press. Since 2008 Grove Music Online has served as a cornerstone of Oxford University Press's larger online research tool Oxford Music Online, which remains a subscription-based service."

Is this information correct?

-- PBS (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before; see e.g. Template talk:Cite Grove/Archive 1. I suppose it depends on which particular Grove is cited. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For Grove Music Online there needs to be a link to an online citation. But what if there is not? -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concern. Reading the template code, I understand that Grove Music Online is only emitted if url, id or doi are specified, so the situation you describe cannot happen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Michael Bednarek It is not when there is a parameter link to an on-line article that is a problem. Using the text in the article The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians it could be an issue of which editors ought to be displayed for articles written before 2009 and which publisher ought to be displayed before 2004. This is necessary to work out for consistency with Template:Cite NewGrove2001. At the moment the two templates display different editor information for articles published in 2001 which do not have a link to an an in-line article in the 8th edition.
 * {|class="wikitable"

!Consistency ||Template name||Display
 * ✅ ||style="width:20%" |Cite Grove (with doi) ||
 * ||Cite Grove ||
 * ||Cite NewGrove2001 ||
 * }
 * -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If our article, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, is correct, the 3rd example above is correct. The 2nd example should not show Root but Sadie & Tyrrell. I think. Nos 2 and 3 don't need a weblink to an article because they presumably cited the print edition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * O, so now you drop a note on my talk page? Sigh. specifically cites a paper edition, which was edited by Sadie (and, notionally, Tyrrell). The editor's name is printed on that book, and does not change over time. What is printed on the book does not change if we add an URL to a Google Books scan of it, nor to any other online copy of that paper edition.Anything you see in Grove Music Online was edited by Root, even if the editing consisted of selecting an entry from the 2001 edition and including it verbatim, for the online edition. This is what an editor does; and it is what Sadie did for the 2001 edition with the entries from the 1980 edition.The reason you're getting inconsistent results is that the old Grove-related templates are inconsistent (written by different people at different times with different implementations, none of them complete or particularly well thought through). Which was why I tried to replace them with clean ones, without these quirks and with consistent behaviour and implementation. But, hey, so long as the revision history is long I'm sure the behaviour is correct… --Xover (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you directing this comment to me specifically or writing for a general audience? If you are directing this to me please see the history of and consider whether I understand that "The editor's name is printed on that book, and does not change over time". In fact books do change over time (and/or location) what does not change is content of a specific edition. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was directed at you, I was just being snippy about it (for reasons explained elsewhere, but mostly irrelevant here), which, of course, I shouldn't have been, and for which I apologise.But you now appear to be saying that a printed copy of a book sitting on a library shelf will magically change itself to display a different editor; which I very much presume is not what you intended. I wrote above that the 2001 edition has a fixed editor (Sadie), and that similarly the online edition (known as "Grove Music Online") has a fixed editor (Root). What part of that is it that you disagree with or think fails to account for what factor? I also wrote that the editor of the 2001 edition doesn't magically change because someone adds a link to an online copy of it on Google Books (or IA, or Hathi, or…): either you are citing the 2001 edition edited by Sadie, or you are citing a different edition (possibly edited by Sadie, possibly by someone else, depending on the edition). Do you disagree with this statement and, if so, for what reason?The revision history of tells me nothing except that in 2016 source-specific citation templates were a mess due to the lack of the facilities that we now get from Module:Citation/CS1 (this is not news to me). What about it, specifically, was it you wished to draw my attention to? --Xover (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was making the point that I am well aware of what a print edition is. However a book published in 1900 my well have two editions. One for London and another for New York. So that although they have the same editor the editions may not be identical. Hence the need for more information. Usually in English one talks about "a book", but that is an imprecise description of a source from the point of view of the needs to complete a citation accutatly.
 * To address the issues you raise:
 * Merging the two templates made sense as one is a fork of the other. It made more sense to modify the older template and then move it rather than redirect the older template to a more modern version so loosing the history of the template. This is standard for cut and past moves, which is we had simply redirected the older template to the newer one is what would have been achieved. The version that user:Trappist the monk developed in the sandbox and tested was similar to your version, but included tailoring to meet the requirements requested by editors on this page. Notably that the editor should not be mentioned in versions with a link to an article on line, and an id parameter to hold the unique part of the doi. I then copied that version into the template space (Revision as of 10:12, 30 June 2020)
 * Of the 787 articles that contain instances of this template 659 articles contain instances of this template that do not link to any online article, and most do not contain a date, and none that I saw contain a page number, therefore is impossible to tell if the editor who added them was obtaining information from a written sources or the online edition.
 * How to present those instances in those 659 articles, given that the citations are not complete (so we can not know to which edition they refer).
 * In the long term all the articles published in the 2001 editions both in paper form and online, should be updated to the latest version online, and the information contained in the Wikipedia article should be modified to remove any discrepancies. This is exactly the same as we do with any dated source. The best comparison of which is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which just like GroveOnline has is updates articles published periodically, and is used to amend or replace information contained in earlier editions like the Dictionary of National Biography of which it is an updated superset of articles. -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the 787 articles that contain instances of this template 659 articles contain instances of this template that do not link to any online article, and most do not contain a date, and none that I saw contain a page number, therefore is impossible to tell if the editor who added them was obtaining information from a written sources or the online edition.
 * How to present those instances in those 659 articles, given that the citations are not complete (so we can not know to which edition they refer).
 * In the long term all the articles published in the 2001 editions both in paper form and online, should be updated to the latest version online, and the information contained in the Wikipedia article should be modified to remove any discrepancies. This is exactly the same as we do with any dated source. The best comparison of which is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which just like GroveOnline has is updates articles published periodically, and is used to amend or replace information contained in earlier editions like the Dictionary of National Biography of which it is an updated superset of articles. -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Add Template:Grove Music subscription
Ok I was going to try and do this myself, but am left confused. Now that Template:Grove Music subscription exists (I asked a user to do so a couple of weeks ago, so it's relatively new), I think it would make sense to add it here, akin to how Template:Cite ODNB has Template:ODNBsub. Though looking at the code of the later, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be done. Would any people above, , or  be able to do so? Regards - Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the text of is unnecessarily narrow; there are many other institutional subscriptions available. Second, this template,, already provides url-access, which should be sufficient. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this, the point of the (and ) is to make it clear to millions of UK readers that they have access to the source, why would we not do so? Aza24 (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds more institutions via Shibboleth, and even more not listed there, like the National Library of Australia, the Queensland State Library, the Wikipedia Library Card. That's why the text at is unnecessarily narrow – unless one can limit its display to users logging in from the UK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the "subscription" part covers that. I don't see how this addition does anything but benefit readers. We're aren't narrowing the scope since the "subscription" part still covers institutional and person subscriptions, we're merely alerting readers in the UK who wouldn't normally have institutional or personal access that they do. Aza24 (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could, but am not inclined to do so. As a percentage of all of the world's English speaking population, the UK population is comparably small.  I don't think that en.wiki should carve-out special exceptions like this.  Further, because this template is rendered by cs1|2, the inclusion of  would make the rendering of the  templates inconsistent with adjacent cs1|2 templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all articles in Grove's on-line are subscription access
@User:Francis Schonken you made an edit in October 2020 "Not all articles in Grove's on-line are subscription access". Can you give a couple of examples (so we can see if there is a pattern to them) and do you know what percentage are not behind a pay wall?

The OUP as a marketing strategy with other publications like the OED often have a small number of articles outside their pay wall, but it is a honey trap and they alter them over time. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are likely a few others, but the most prominent one I was thinking of is https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.6002278195 (a very elaborate article, by top scholars in the field, on one of the best known composers, used as a reference in multiple Wikipedia articles). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with most of your recent changes to the documentation, so I reverted them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another free access one:

undefined


 * (note that "8th edition" is no longer correct for this one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Re. "The OUP as a marketing strategy with other publications like the OED often have a small number of articles outside their pay wall, but it is a honey trap and they alter them over time." – this extrapolation, even if it would be true for other publications of the same publisher (which I couldn't tell), reads like unsubstantiated prejudice when talking about Grove's. Especially the "honey trap" seems, afaik, completely off: I can confirm that the two above articles have been free-access for as long as I've known them, and for the first that is at least half a decade. If you have evidence to the contrary regarding Grove's, please present it instead of venting what seem to be, on first sight, aspersions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "" Just like old times! --PBS (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What percentage of the articles in Grove Online do you consider to be "free" to view? -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be a small number (so, for the time being, that may be the only aspect I agree with in the second paragraph of your OP), but that that would automatically signify a "marketing strategy" is imho an unsubstantiated wild guess. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, again, the first example above is a very elaborate article: that article alone is as substantial as several, maybe even dozens of, "average length" articles in Grove's. Also the second is quite elaborate, and likely a few times the length of an average one. So "number" of free access ones is also rather relative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To give you an exact number: 66 (=1,3%) – I see that e.g. also the Beethoven biography (certainly no small article) is free access. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Editions
Apologies - I boldly edited the template to add "2nd edition" to the condition when the print citation is used (when there's no doi, url, or id parameter given), which although it seems to be fair enough, I should have read this talk page first. Hopefully we can let this change stand, but now having read the history I'd like to propose a simple change before doing any more bold template editing, namely: if citing Grove Online (a non-empty url, doi, or id parameter): set editor = Root; else: set editors = Sadie and Tyrell. This will accurately represent the editors of both the online resource and the printed dictionary that we appear to want to cite, namely the second edition published by Macmillan in 2001, which was sold to Oxford University Press in 2004. Further to this, we probably should either: a) change the date to 2004, or b) change the publisher/place for the printed citation to Macmillain (London). Thoughts? — Jon (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed change below. This fixes the editor(s) and publisher for the online and print editions, and also fixes displaying the DOI link when supplied as the doi parameter, and adds the subscription only indicator if url is supplied (but apparently is invalid). — Jon (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

|publisher= |location= |doi= |url-access= |editor1-last= |editor1-first= |editor1-link= |editor2-last= |editor2-first= |editor2-link=


 * That would ignore other volumes. See |the archive. EddieHugh (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by volumes. Do you mean that we should not cite Deane Root as the editor of Grove Online? If so, that's an easy fix too. Jon (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is false to list Deane Root as the editor and OUP as the publisher of the 2001 second edition of the printed New Grove; so I'm going to at least fix that, and leave the DOI and subscription indicator mess for later, as well as whether we include Deane Root as the editor of the Grove Online (which he is, but their own citation exports don't include an editor, as pointed out here before). — Jon (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Other volumes include Jazz and Opera, which were edited by others. See the list at Grove. EddieHugh (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this template in its current form assumes either Grove Online (no editors) if a URL DOI or id is passed, or printed New Grove (2001) if not. If you want to cite the Jazz, Opera, Instruments, or American Music dictionaries, which have different editors, publishers, and dates, then we should probably be using separate templates for those, rather than propose an insanely complicated system of parameter-parsing to figure out what people mean when using the template. Unless we're up for that, of course :-) I'm able to help to a limited extent with crazy-looking template syntax, but I'm not proficient enough with Lua and wiki APIs to write a module to can handle that sort of complexity. Jon (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)