Talk:Jazz/Years in Jazz

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 in jazz triggered a lengthy discussion on content an organization of articles such as 1924 in jazz. This page is an area to continue the discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard contents of year in jazz articles

Typical headings are:

Events
Standards
Births
Deaths

Should there be others?

I think the best thing is to start with an overview of the year in the past tense in some written paragraphs like 1924 in jazz. Then I think an events section in present tense of that year is relevant with actual dates/montsh given. Then I think albums listed and standards then I think jazz criticism then I think births and deaths.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion in article

Some of the lists could potentially become very large, e.g. "Standards" or "Births". Are there any criteria that could be defined to limit the size?

I propose a minimum criterion, a bit arbitrary but at least easy to check, that an artist, song, album etc. not be included in a list unless there is an article about that artist, song, album etc. There is still a very real risk that the lists could get huge, particularly in the more recent years where there are a lot of well-documented living people, but it would help control the size of the lists. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, listing bluelinks only makes sense. There's an external tool here that lists the intersection of two given categories... That could useful in finding jazz musicians born in a given year. For example, I get 57 results for Category:1920 births and Category:Jazz musicians. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I know about that tool? I tried it for 1969 births, result in 1969 in jazz#Births. The process is a bit mechanical, but I don't care, as Bobby Benson said. I think the list is interesting - very varied. Great! Aymatth2 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with other articles

Related articles include ones like 1920s in jazz, List of 1920s jazz standards. What other types of related articles exist? How do we avoid overlap / forking between the articles?

. I think the decade lists are perfectly appropriate but I also think it is approrpriate to list the standards in the year articles. Rather I would suggest that maybe it is revised either expanded upon or condensed in the year pages to avoid it being an exact copy. What do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with "19xx jazz standards" articles

A jazz standard is a composition that is played by many different performers. Not the same as a particular recording. The "list of jazz standards" could be expanded to include some of the notable recordings of each standard. At least with the early years, the number of jazz standards should be fairly static, although newer recordings may be added. A "year in jazz" article could summarize the corresponding list of jazz standards, with a {{main}} pointer to that list, but give a more complete list of recordings issued. With later years, as EPs and LPs were introduced, there should be relatively little overlap. That is,

List of 1950s jazz standards: 1954 - XXX was first recorded by artist AAA on album PDQ, and later recorded by artists BBB, CCC and DDD, among others.
1954 in jazz: Albums released in 1954 included AAA's PDQ, which included the first recording of jazz standard XXX.

Does that make sense? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. If you take, for example, St. Louis Blues (song), there could be a mention in 1917 in jazz along the lines of "W.C. Handy published 'St. Louis Blues', which later became one of the most popular jazz standards". Then, in 1921 in jazz you could mention that the Original Dixieland Jazz Band made the first jazz recording of song, and again in 1925 in jazz you could talk about the famous version by Bessie Smith and Louis Armstrong. These would not excessively overlap with the lists of standards, which would then work as they currently do: as a short summary for each song with the most important information. In fact, the yearly articles could just have a "songs" section with standards mixed in there with other published/recorded/performed songs that are considered notable enough for inclusion. You would have to take care not to try to include every possible release and performance, though -- a list is often not very useful if it gets excessively long. Jafeluv (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with "decade in Jazz" articles

I propose that the decades articles like 1920s in jazz are developed into a history summary by year with a main link like with 1924 to the year. It is certainly redundant to list the standards in ALL of the articles. So I propose that the decade pages consists of only written paragraph text covering history and that lists of standards, albums, births and deaths are removed and placed in the relative years articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. To me, the decade articles should be narratives, not lists, talking about overall trends in that decade. E.g. decline of this form of jazz, growing popularity of that form, trumpeter AAA burst onto the scene ... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The format could be something like 1940s in music, with some textual explanation and {{main}} links to the yearly articles. (The "<year> in music" article could then eventually contain a summary of "<year> in jazz", by the way.) Jafeluv (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See 1920, 1922 and 1924 for 1920s in jazz. Like that me thinks is the way to go. As I flesh out the 20s articlws I'll remove the list of standards and births from the decade article..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

See 1939 in jazz for my very first attempt at designing an infobox. It seemed to me that readers may want to browse to closely related articles, and this could help them. Any suggestions for improvement welcome, obviously. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]