Talk:The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians

Guglielmo Baldini was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1

Humour

It is nice to see how scholars tricked one another demonstrating their sense of humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.54.242 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified statements

There really are a lot of unverified statements needed citations. For example, "editors likely decided to concentrate on the 2nd edition"; "subject to some negative criticism (e.g. in Private Eye) owing to the significant number of typographical and factual errors that it contains"; "errors were ascribed to the use of students for checking the dictionary"; "although in fact no students were ever employed as editorial staff" (WP:SYNTH?); "It attracted some initial criticism"; "often the first source that English-speaking musicologists use" (WP:PEACOCK?); "exceedingly valuable to any scholar" (ditto). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

In the humour section, there is a link to the article about Robert Layton - a politician. Is this right? 142.177.44.20 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

As far as I can tell, the encyclopedia was never called 'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'. It was Grove's. I suggest renaming it to its title since 1980: The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (now a redirect). --Klein zach 02:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has been the name up until it went online, so that sounds OK to me, and since there's only one edit for that redirect, you won't need an administrator to do it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Klein zach 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American editions

AFAIK, all the dates given in the article are for the original British editions, however, looking at old books being sold through the Alibris, it seems that Macmillan were publishing it in New York at least as early as 1904 [1]. I wonder if it's worth listing the New York editions? Perhaps someone has access to a library holding them? --Klein zach 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just corrected the dates of the London editions. They were wrong. This may render my question un-necessary. It's possible that it was jointly published in London and New York and there is no difference between the editions, other than the place of sale. --Klein zach 09:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150912184218/http://www.gregsandow.com/grove.htm to http://www.gregsandow.com/grove.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor date discrepancy

I am looking at the Fifth edition of Grove's. The publication pages show the First edition volumes as published 1878, 1880, 1883, 1899. (as opposed to 1989 for the fourth volume in Wikipedia.) 1889 is slightly more plausible but the book says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.65.51 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have 1889, not 1989. The Fifth Ed. probably has a typo, similar to yours. Title page of Vol. 4. --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date correction: 1899 vs 1900

I'm looking at a copy of the (Oxford printed Macmillan) four volume reprint that incorporates the index. The title page is dated 1899, rather than the 1900 mentioned in Wikipedia, but I can't find any online reference to quote that would support making the change. 2A02:C7C:CA4C:6100:D115:850E:40EC:719C (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]