Talk:Trent codices

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Surely this should be considered a source rather than a composer? I have to say I'm a bit unhappy about opening the floodgates to all manner of MSS being considered "composers" when the composer can only be considered Anonymous. --Bobnotts talk 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I agree, and I think that we have been through this sometime in the dim past. Anonymous should be the composer. This makes even more sense when a work is available in more than one of these old sources. To me it is alright to have a page (or even perhaps a category) for "Trent codices" (or whatever), and works may be listed (or categorized) there, but the primary "composer compositions category" should be either for the actual composers or anonymous. – Chucktalk Giffen 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above said; no problem with adding a "Category:Trent codices" to the works as Chuck suggests, but it should not be included as a composer. —Carlos Email.gif 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Bob, would this be a problem if the page were renamed Anonymous (Trent codices) compositions? It seems to me Anon. is more useful as a parent category: it's already split into chant repertories. Richard Mix 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)