Talk:Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Folklore High‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce (assessed as Low-importance).

Numerical data on the ATU tale types

Hello, fellow editors. I do have a question about an inclusion on the article: should I add to the text data on the most collected tale types, based on analysis by international folklorists?189.122.57.144 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Distribution” and “Particular items”

I don’t understand the content of these sections. “Distribution” seems to be distribution in space, but the opening sentence suggests it’s distribution in time. Perhaps the language is overly technical. The “Particular items” seem to be examples of analyses of ATU types, in which case the heading is obscure, and there is no obvious (to me) reason for the ATU565 articles being included here as they are not analyses, they are examples. It would be good to see some clarification of what was intended. Thanks :) --Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Northernhenge:: first of all, thank you for your interest in the ATU system. Your help is appreciated! Secondly, the section of this article about the "Distribution in time" is based on a 2016 study that used the ATU system, ran it through a historical analysis (I'm oversimplifying it), and published the results. The researchers' conclusion is that some tale types (not tales, the types) are traceable to some linguistic branches of the Indo-European linguistic family. This section was before my time here either an anynymous IP editor or under my name, so I was not the one to add the information.

ATU 565 was included here by someone. The key motif of type ATU 565 is that, at the conclusion of the tale, the magic object is the one to make the sea as it is today: salty. It's just as much a motif as it is a tale type. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Northernhenge (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising a source

In this edit, I replaced “(e.g., typos, redundancies, censorship, etc.);” with “(including typos, redundancies, and censorship):”. This removed the abbreviations, especially the redundant use of e.g. and etc. together. The edit was reverted on the basis that the original version (e.g. ... etc.) was a quotation. The source which is referenced says:

So we can see that in some instances, motifs overlap with tale types, and in others, tale types overlap with other tale types. Such overlapping surely suggests that both the current motif and tale type systems are flawed. Another serious problem with both the motif and tale type indices involves the recurring issue of censorship. Thompson indulged in what can only be described as absurd and excessive prudery.

And further down the page,

Finally, a problem which is more of an annoyance is what might by termed "ghost entries." Now it must be understood that in a mammoth compilation of the scope of the indices under discussion, it is quite understandable that typographical errors or occasional omissions are bound to occur.

I therefore reverted the reversion. I won’t revert it again though, so if there is a consensus in favour of abbreviations, so be it, but I do recommend choosing either e.g. or etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete unseth was in error, because Northernhenge did not edit the quotation itself, but rather its summary. --Altenmann >talk 21:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]