Talk:Roud Folk Song Index

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music 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.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Roud Folk Song Index was copied or moved into List of folk songs by Roud number with this edit on 15 November 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

List of folk songs by Roud number

This section is currently tagged {{inc-musong}}. Do we really want to expand it? I'm adding the Roud info to #711, but I don't see filling in another 610 songs just to get mine on that list. / edgarde 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. The more the merrier. I just added "The Monkeys Have No Tails in Zamboanga". The Wikipedia article lists a collected version by Gordon and two Jazz versions, none of which are mentioned by Roud. I actually never heard of the index until today, and I found out from the article on "Silver Dagger"!Pustelnik 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit Numbering

I'd like to change the # implicit numbering to explicit numbers to make editing easier and to have look consistent with the rest of the index. Does anyone have any objections? Laetoli (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since no one objects, I've done so. Laetoli (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done that man. It must have taken ages, and completely thankless as well. I will drink a drink to you tonight. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

After reading the article, I still don't get what the point of the index is, and what a low or high number signifies. For example, in the article on Humpty Dumpty, it says it has and index number of 13026. Is the number supposed to tell us something about the nursery rhyme? Can some of you try to explain the index to me here on the discussion? Then we can see how to improve the explanation in the article. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the artical says a whole lot of nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.159.96 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.132.44 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hey, I've been steadily working at adding a template for the first 100 songs in the index, which can be found here. It looks good to me, but I don't want to do anymore if steady editors don't like it. I'd sure appreciate some feedback on it, how I can I improve it, etc., etc. (or if I should give up and just not add a complete template). Just let me know on that page's talk. Thanks. The Gates of Eden (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this for

What is the purpose of the Roud index? The Roud score is being spammed across every nursery rhyme and folk song article, and yet this article fails to assert why the Roud index score is important or significant, and, in its present state, ought to be deleted. I don't want to use deletion as a lever to improve the article so:

Is there any evidence, at all, of it being used in scholarly circles?
Can we have some references?
Can the article explain why the Roud Index is important and significant?

If it can't manage to do these in a month or two I will nominate the article for deletion, and in its present state it would be deleted. 194.176.105.41 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Roud Folk Index is an index for the purpose of finding a folk song based on words or a phrase in the song, in much the way one would type "lyrics we come from the land of the ice and snow" into a search engine to find the song titled "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin.

See http://library.efdss.org/cgi-bin/textpage.cgi?file=aboutRoud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.185.222 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the above concerns in my recent updates to the article itself. Inspeximus (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion arises (here and in "I don't get it" above) from the fact that the original commentators think that the Roud number is a "score", or has some similar significance. It isn't and doesn't. Its purpose is simply to provide each song with a unique identity number (like a URL or ISBN), but the number is not meant to hold any inner meaning. I have made an edit which I hope clarifies this point. GrindtXX (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why List Individual Songs

I believe that I understand the reason for this article - and have endeavoured to help justify its existence by some recent edits. However, I am uncertain of the reason for the inclusion of a partial list of the Index entries themselves within the article - for the following reasons:

Given that the complete Roud Index itself is now available online, where it may be searched by any reasonable field, what is the purpose of listing individual songs within this article? It is to provide a reference list to the articles on the songs themselves to be found elsewhere in Wikipedia?

Secondly, if as the article indicates, there are over 20,000 songs in the Index, then are they all to be included in the article - or just some and if so where is the line to be drawn? Should the list only include those songs which already have their own article on Wikipedia?

I'm not saying that I oppose the inclusion of the song list - and confess to being new to this interesting topic. Indeed, I'm happy in principle to contribute to the list by cross referencing with the relevant sources, but I remain puzzled by its inclusion, hence my questions.

Inspeximus (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, do not believe that my folk heritage needs to be "justified", any more than I think that the FBI needed to investigate Alan Lomax for four straight decades. As the poet Emily Dickinson once observed, beauty is its own reason for being. Keep this poetic heritage of the english-speaking peoples out in the sun where it belongs, and stop whining about it. Sorry, but this had to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.106.30 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That completely misses the point of what the original commenter is saying, which is asking why does the list seem to randomly include some entries and leave others out, almost arbitrarily. This is particularly valid when, as has been said, the entire index can be found online elsewhere and likely in a more useful format. I would have to say that your comment doesn't even seem particularly related to the original question. And as an aside which nobody else has mentioned, I did note the article contains the section "Over 9,000" when it could probably have been better to use "10,000 Onwards" or something similar. However, that is merely my opinion considering how some people feel about the inclusion of memes on Wikipedia; although I did find it amusing.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valuable article, and will probably grow to be indispensable. If you know the Roud Index number of a song, this is where you find out if there is an entry in Wikipedia. If you don't know the Roud number but do have a Child or Laws number, you can search this article and find it. (Of course, this depends on the listing being as full and up-to-date as possible.) The benefits will be felt over the long term, I'm sure, as cross-referncing will lead people with expertise to entries that need improving. Of these there are still many.

As to why it is incomplete, there is no easy way of extracting the information from the Roud Index to produce a satisfactory complete listing. I've just added a few. Even though I knew the number and one title for each song, I had to search Roud to check what title(s) to include. Over time, I have no doubt that users will see the point and fill in the gaps where they can. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering scheme - deletions

I have deleted the following three sentences from the section Numbering scheme and cross references because I don't see how they help explain, or even illustrate, the rationale of the numbering scheme. If somebody wants to explain their relevance, please reinsert them:

"This explains why "Sheath and Knife" (Child 16) is Roud 3960."

""Brigg Fair" (Roud 1083), "I'll Tell Me Ma" (Roud 2649) and "Cuckoo's Nest" (Roud 5407) are undocumented before 1898."

"The most modern folk songs were still being discovered in the 1970s in the Ozark Mountains."

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it deserves a top level tag. It has a few individual tags which are fine. I'll take off the top level tag. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Many References and Songs?

The opening paragraph of this article reports that the Index contains 300,000 references to 21,600 songs, but no sources are given and I cannot find evidence to support these figures. The homepage of the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library (http://library.efdss.org/cgi-bin/home.cgi) quotes "146,000 references to songs" while the online version of the database itself apparently has 187,800 records according to the search page (http://library.efdss.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?cross=off&index_roud=on&access=off). I'm guessing that the latter figure is larger because it is simply more up to date than the former but I imagine that there could be other reasons.

The figure of 300,000 references is perhaps based on the statements about the inclusion of the Broadside Index within the Folk Song Index, but I think that this must be double counting since those broadside songs which occur in the tradition were copied over from the Broadside Index to the Folk Song Index (according to http://library.efdss.org/cgi-bin/textpage.cgi?file=aboutRoudbroadside&access=off) so are already included in the 146,000 or 187,000 figure.

I can find no references to the support any count for number of distinct songs (the whole point of the Index itself).

Can anyone help with clarifying the above?

Inspeximus (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I queried these figures recently in relation to another article and have added a reference with the figures that I received from another editor. I'm just assuming they are correct, but if you have any further queries please add them here. I'm not an expert in this area, but would like to have the correct figures for this and related articles. Hohenloh⁺ 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was that other editor - though I'll immediately add that I'm no expert either. However, looking at the two databases, it's easily established that there are currently 187,800 records on the Folk Song Index (which I think we can equate with "references to songs"), and 153,343 on the Broadside Index. I'm unclear on quite how much overlap there is between the two indexes, but there's certainly some: see, for example, the two records for the song entitled "Edward" (Roud no 200: first line "Why does your brand sae drop wi blood, Edward") which appear identically on the two databases. (I admit I had to search quite hard to find that example!) In the present context, therefore, I think the Broadside Index should be ignored. The question of "number of songs" is less easy to ascertain, but the sequence of Roud numbers currently goes up to 23,809. (There's no way I can see of automatically generating that figure, but I've found it simply through random searching in the Roud number field, and seeing where the numbers run out.) There are a few gaps in the Roud sequence (1,100 and 23,808, to identify just two which I chanced across), but at least it gives us a ballpark figure. So that leaves total figures of 187,800 references to roughly 23,000 songs; which, given that the database continues to grow, and nobody wants to update the figures too frequently, I think we could reasonably round up to "nearly 200,000 references to nearly 25,000 songs". Comments? GrindtXX (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your conclusion that the separate total of entries in the Broadside Index should be ignored; since I understand from the EFDSS site that there is deliberately more or less complete duplication from the Broadside Index into the Roud Index. I also like the suggestion of rounding up, to avoid unnecessary updating at frequent intervals. Given the lateness of my response, during which time there have been no other comments, I'll make the necessary changes to the article myself.

Inspeximus (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

Since it was first included, the list has grown and is now overwhelming the prose section of this article. I think it would be better to move the list to its own article. It's certainly notable and substantial enough to stand alone imho, and that's without any more additions. It would enable other formatting to be done if appropriate, perhaps make it a table to make it sortable by title (although that isn't the main reason to split and isn't a necessary consequence of a split). Particularly if the list is getting less selective (as it appears) the best title may just be List of folk songs by Roud number. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would support both the split and the suggested title. GrindtXX (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support You would appear to have an excellent precedent in that the List of the Child Ballads is itself a separate article from the article describing the Child Ballads! Inspeximus (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now carried out the split. The lead for List of folk songs by Roud number needs improving, as does the formatting of the list. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I'm not sure if it matters but does Roud rhyme with prude or proud? Is the pronunciation worth an explanatory bracket? Dinoceras (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It rhymes with proud. I'll leave others to decide whether it's worth noting. GrindtXX (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dinoceras (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]