Talk:List of folk songs by Roud number

Clerk Corvill

In the process of trying to fix broken links in the main article, I've come across the song entitled "Clerk Corvill" - both in the Roud Index article itself (No. 147) and the List of Child Ballads article (No. 42). Checking around other sources it appears to me that this song is actually "Clerk Colvill" - which song does appear in Wikipedia in its own article. I only hesitate to make the correction since this spelling appears to have persisted in both Wikipedia Lists for some time and am surprised on one else has noticed if it is indeed wrong - or at least a less well known spelling. Could someone kindly confirm which is correct and then I can adjust links accordingly? Inspeximus (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken Links/Missing Songs

I believe that the common understanding is that the purpose of the inclusion of a list of specific Roud Index numbers and song titles within this article (or within a separate but related article) is to help people to find the relevant article for that song within Wikipedia. It is therefore unfortunate that around 67 songs in the current list have broken links, which after checking I've confirmed to be because an article of that (or similar) name does not appear in Wikipedia. Presumably this is because the original article has been removed or has not yet been written. Now around 40-odd of these are entries do appear in the List of the Child Ballads article, so may be justified in their inclusion in this list - but around 25 are neither in the Child list nor have a Wikipedia article. Should these entries be removed until such times as those articles re-appear? Inspeximus (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm firmly against removing the unlinked titles, since it provides a starting point for when somebody writes the new article. An alternative is to turn the 'orphans' into red pseudo-links, inviting authors to supply the missing article. DavidCrosbie (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I just bashed out a quick-and-nasty Template:Roud, so that {{Roud|127}} will furnish a clickable external link to query the EFDSS, e.g.: Roud number 127. This might be of use for a few entries at a time, though I would not suggest wholesale linking of every entry in the list.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To explain my contributions

In case you wonder why I have made a lot of contributions to this page in the last few months... It's not entirely altruistic but rather because I write a regular blog for the folk club I attend (Dragon Folk Club). In doing so I try to give songs which have them Roud numbers. I cross reference that information with a number of web-based resources, of which the definitive one is the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library. I have taken to checking that any Roud numbered songs I find are also on this page, hence the rather random order of my additions. From time to time I also find mis-numbered songs, which I correct. I have adopted a number of conventions, mainly related to wikilinks. Whereever the title of a song does not link to an irrelevant article I create a wikilink (even if it is a red link - see the comment by Inspeximus above). Sometimes, even where there isn't a Wikipedia article specifically about the song, there is a related article (e.g. a historical article about a battle) which mentions the song and can usefully be linked. SMeeds (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

84.92.108.91 on 14-15 March 2017 was also me. I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. SMeeds (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Byker Hill

Roud number 3488 is clearly the song commonly known as Byker Hill but The Vaughan Williams Memorial Library only lists the titles Walker Pits and Walker Pit and Byker Shore. I have added those two titles to the article but I have not removed Byker Hill on the basis that it is so well known by that name. If you think my approach inappropriate then please do a further edit or comment here. Thanks! SMeeds (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Titles

AlexanderHovanec has started a move to rationalise this page, removing alternative titles from songs. I don't disagree with the general gist of this approach but I would want it noted that I have added alternative titles on some songs (not all the ones I've added, I admit) for what I consider to be good reasons. Here are some examples of those reasons:

• Roud 3488 - see my comment immediately above this one for details.
• Roud 22620/22621 - while very ugly, serves to differentiate (as does Roud) between the American and British versions of the same song.
• Roud 151/192/209 - where links to two Wikipedia articles are required to cover alternative versions

I therefore suggest care is taken when deleting alternative versions that some value is not lost.

On a slightly different but related topic, while composing this note I have edited 192 because Roud seems to consider it a different song from 104, while Child does not. SMeeds (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

~ The way I explained myself was very sloppy, using the edit summaries. But I'm certainly glad you don't disagree. I've said it before but I'll specify once again:

* #9999 "[ [ Song A ] ]", "[ [ Song A ] ] (but an alternative title)"

* #9999 "[ [ Song A ] ]", or "[ [ Song B ] ]"

~ Line 1 I find to be slightly confusing, while Line 2 is indeed justified. I feel some may be unable to distinguish between the two and it seems a bit unorganized. I'm sure you've got good reasons for adding titles in the way of how Line 1 (above) is presented, and the examples you've listed seem very justified. So if you feel I've made an unnecessary change or an error, by all means revert my edit. You're probably more familiar with the Roud system than anyone.

~ And if anyone else disagrees with "my move to rationalise this page", then let me know what you think like S.M. has.

~ Another method to going about my changings would be to convert a:

* #9999 "[ [ Song A ] ]", "[ [ Song A ] ]" (but an alternative title)

to a:

* #9999 [ [ Song A's article | "Song A", "Song A (but an alternative title)" ] ]

... if that makes any sense.

~ All in all, I was only going to do this for songs 1 through 200. I was going to leave the rest to anyone else who might be interested. Because my logic was, at the very least, the songs that begin the list should look slightly more presentable and less complex. There's thousands of songs listed and making each one look more presentable may prove to be a tedious and long process.

~ But thanks a lot! And happy editing. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

22620 and 22621

In regards to this specific example of your's, I don't think this would apply under what I've been doing. They may technically be the same song, but TWO Roud numbers were assigned to the song. The American version has a Roud number. And the British version has a Roud number. MY beef is when alternate listings of a song are under the SAME Roud number! So if one particular song was truly indexed with two different numbers, than it's beyond my power to change that.

I'm finding it quite difficult to portray my thoughts! Perhaps this will help:

1 song with 2 Roud numbers is A-OK!

1 Roud number with 2 of the same songs seems a bit awry for this article.

I hope I was able to clarify my thoughts on the matter. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You say "1 Roud number with 2 of the same songs seems a bit awry for this article." but surely that is also down to Roud... and other Wikipedians. If there are two articles about songs which Roud groups under one number for whatever reason, then they should surely both be linked - or maybe you are saying that this in itself is justification for merging the two articles? In general when editing this article I don't go creating, merging or deleting individual song articles (though I may tweak an article here or there if I see obvious errors). SMeeds (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely down to the other Wikipedians. Which is why you can revert any of my edits if you wish to do so.

(I wouldn't really say it's up to Roud how the Wikipedia page is organized, though; unless he had a Wikipedia account and left his thoughts on the matter just like any other Wikipedia user may. It's more of a page formatting issue, which he (or the library, or general Roud system) obviously doesn't dictate. :))

It's just, if (in the Wikipedia article) Roud #1 lists "The Raggle Raggle Gypsy" AND "Seven Yellow Gypsies" next to each other, only separated by a comma, then a viewer will naturally (cognitively) comprehend these as two different songs, until they click on both of the links and see that they, in fact, lead to the same article. See the issue here? That's the whole point of me making all of these edits. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

BUT, with your reference to 22620 to 22621, there isn't an issue. The Roud system would clearly like to distinguish the different versions of the same song with different index numbers. So Wikipedians have no choice but to list them separately, as you pointed out. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree there's no point in linking to the same article twice in an article; in fact it is against the conventions of Wikipedia. I meant where two articles are linked from the same Roud number, such as Roud 151. As for Steve Roud editing the article, I would have no problem but others might question COI. SMeeds (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Roud vs Roud

so Roud 8136 (Ned of the Hill) is a english version of Éamonn an Chnoic - ok so far - but Roud V28517 is also a english version of... - I really don't understand this -- 185.17.204.43 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Roud 8136 and Roud V28517. What I haven't found is a definitive explanation of what Roud's "V" numbers are. Roud 8136 definitely deserves the description "english version of Éamonn an Chnoic". Here are the words for Roud 8136 and here the words for Roud V28517. Here's some further description. Here are the words for the versions to which it refers: NEDHILL, NEDHILL2, NEDHILL3. I'm not sure that's conclusive; it needs someone who understands the "V" numbering and maybe we need more definitive information on the origin of V28517 which may or may not be proved to be directly related. SMeeds (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

first of all: thank you for the work you did to research all this - yes, this V is mysterious to me and this is a general question to me. I will now check your Links. Again, thank you for this Job -- 62.216.207.139 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ok there is one thing I saw: Roud V28517 shows in VWML the first line Hill! the hill! with its sparkling rill - and Roud 8136 shows the first line Dark was the evening and silent the hour - hm, very difficult. It become more and more mysterious. Maybe the Author of the Wikipedia-page of Ned should add lyrics and explanations - however, thank you -- 62.216.207.139 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

oops, a copy-paste-mistake of mine -- 62.216.207.139 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the versions of Roud 8136 (S431157) starts "You with voice shrill and sharp", which is different again. SMeeds (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Roud #1120

is this Song maybe The Stolen Child by William Butler Yeats? -- 62.216.207.143 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look likely. Link 1, Link 2, Link 3. SMeeds (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Roud #682 The first Noel

is this maybe this song ? -- 62.216.207.66 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Title corrected and link established. SMeeds (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Converting to Table

Any reason not to have this list as a table. It would be able to be sorted alphabetically if wanted. BangKettle (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)