Talk:Roud Folk Song Index

message: This section is currently tagged . 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)
thread_title: List of folk songs by Roud number

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, since no one objects, I've done so. Laetoli (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explicit Numbering

message: 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)
thread_title: I don't get it

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
thread_title: What is this for

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Why List Individual Songs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: 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)
replies: text: Support. I would support both the split and the suggested title. GrindtXX (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: 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)
replies: text: It rhymes with proud. I'll leave others to decide whether it's worth noting. GrindtXX (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Dinoceras (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Roud_Folk_Song_Index_and_Child_Ballads_nr_in_the_WP:LEAD_of_articles_about_songs|Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs]]