This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Thanks for this new article: satisfying and a pleasure to read. But I wonder about the title. The institution was never "of Music", but was always "for" it. See Grove, the ODNB, and The Times passim. I really think we ought to move the article to the correct title. Do other editors have a view on this? Tim riley talk13:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had always understood that it was "for", and we should rely on The Times and Grove, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. 4meter4, what sources do you have that say "of"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers and Tim riley I am fine with either title and have no strong preference. The Oxford Dictionary of Music entry uses only "National Training School of Music". That is the second cited source (see here. In searching Grove, there doesn't appear to be consistent usage. The "entry" "National Training School for Music" has no author and is a redirect to the RSM article. There are several biographical entries in Grove that use "National Training School of Music" and several that use "National Training School for Music". The reason I chose "of" instead of "for" was because Grove uses both in various entries and the ODN only one. But given the other sources above, it looks like "for" may be the better choice. I am fine with retitling if that is the preference expressed here. Either way, both titles should be in the lead. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Shame on the Oxford University Press for shilly-shallying about the name of the institution! Not that The Times of the 1870s was completely consistent: a couple of "of"s crept in among the "for"s. I still think "for" is correct, but for my own part I'm not inclined to press the point further. Tim riley talk08:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to change the name to the one (most often) used contemporarily by The Times, but I leave the decision to you, User:4meter4. Let me know if you need help correcting it on any of the pages that link it, unless a bot will do that automatically. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
