Talk:Frog Went A-Courting

(Rated C-class, Low-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

WikiProject Songs

(Rated C-class)

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.

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> \| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Wikisource

This should probably be moved to Wikisource Mihoshi 17:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the lyrics, but I do think there should be an article on the song, its history, and its variants. --Allen 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Where there are many versions of a song they should probably go to wikisource, but most song articles keep one (the best known) version. I think we should have a version here where readers will look for it.--Sabrebd (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

Book

How do you go about merging two articles? I think Frog Went A-Courtin' should be merged with this one. Jeffr 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Carlo 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that cross-references were supposed to enlarge your knowledge. In this case all the cross-references are red (empty) links. Shouldn't they be removed, and not returned until they actually point to something? Ogg 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Red links encourage people to write articles about the missing subjects. Carlo 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. The red links here are mostly likely notable enough for an article to be included. If there is an article that touches on the subjects, perhaps it should be linked to though. --Jonathan Williams 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is the philosophy of the hopelessly lazy, or the hopelessly optimistic. I will be extremely surprised if anyone writes a worthwhile article on "Kemo Kimo". At most it is worth a paragraph within the current article, not a separate entry. Ogg 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

Frog went a-courting vs Frog he would a-wooing go - split?

Does anyone else think that these songs should be split? I learned them as different songs:

"A frog he would a woo-ing go, Hey ho says Rowley..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQO8xGV-9So

"Frog he went a courting and he did ride, King Kong Kitchie Kitchie Ki-Me-O..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppPYGVkox98

Not only are the lyrics radically different, but the tune is too... They may (or may not) historically stem from the same source, but these days?

Thoughts? Quickos (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. There are an enormous number of different versions of this song, and with many other songs. Separate article for every version would seem to be counter-productive. Carlo (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point was, if it has a both a different tune and different lyrics, then surely it has to be a different song? Have a look at the two youtube links, hopefully they'll explain it better than I. Quickos (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they have a different Roud number? - usually a good guide to whether they are the same song or different versions.--SabreBD (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It surprises me that the two songs are classed as one even if their story is roughly the same, and all the more that the article makes no mention of the fact that they have entirely different tunes and words, which according to most dictionary definitions of "song" would make it a different song. So it's at least worth a mention if not a complete split. 80.254.146.20 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

What Are We Talking About

I had to read through the first two paragraphs to find out that this is a SONG. I really think that word should show up very early in a description of a SONG, like almost immediately. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

Last modified on 4 December 2012, at 06:44