IMSLP Forums

From what I know, 'n.d.' stands for 'not dated', used to categorise scores with unknown date of publishing. Approximate dates or range of dates can be added if necessary, sometimes with 'ca.' (about/approximately).

However, I keep seeing different formatting for it, especially for manuscript files. Therefore, I would like to request help from experts in this field to clarify the differences between the following examples and when to use them. Thanks!

Guide: YYYY - year, for example: 1850. YYYY-XX / YYYY-X - range of years, for example: 1850-95 / 1850-5.

n.d.( ) v.s. n.d.[ ]

n.d.(YYYY) / n.d.[YYYY]
n.d.(YYYY-XX) / n.d.[YYYY-XX]
n.d.(ca.YYYY) / n.d.[ca.YYYY]
n.d.(ca.YYYY-XX) / n.d.[ca.YYYY-XX]

On IMSLP we use a date inside brackets when a score is not imprinted with a date but we know from a confirmed source the year the score was issued. Circa would not be used with brackets. As for using a range of years inside brackets it would have to be a very odd case such as a series/edition consisting of multiple scores that was issued over a known range of years.

Parentheses are used in cases in which the score is not imprinted with a date and we do not have a confirmed source for the year it was issued. Parentheses should always be used with some qualifier such as circa, before, after, a question mark, etc. since the date (or range of dates) is only an estimate (perhaps based upon the plate number of the score).

So, the valid options would be as follows (ca. being just a placeholder for whatever qualifier is needed): n.d. (ca.XXXX), n.d. (ca.XXXX-YYYY), n.d.[XXXX], and possibly n.d.[XXXX-YYYY]. I have no doubt you will find many instances that do not follow those options but with nearly half a million scores on the site it is impossible to enforce such standards and the standards have evolved over the years.

The score submission guide/file information includes a section on dating of scores. I note that the page gives (YYYY) as an option to use when the score originally was imprinted with a date but the current scan is lacking a date. I don't think that suggestion has been followed in many years. In such cases the imprinted date can often be confirmed from Worldcat and we would simply input the date as YYYY.

So does the 'Formatting dates' section need to be revised/updated?

In retrospect, I find this topic to be more fitting under the 'Categorization / Standardization' forum. Can this thread be moved there?