Wiki

[ken garner]

Phil is right, so is Richard. A relational database in the end makes more sense. Sadly, 
though, i worked in applications that made sense for producing at speed a book. The 
shows index, part of which in a rough form I gave to Phil so he could provide a large 
number of corections, especially regarding the early 90s - now in a 7th updated edition 
since publication with a few corrections and additions - is and only ever was an MS word 
document. The Sessionography was originally created for bulk entry as an excel 
spreadsheet, but so many editorial changes were made later to the word conversion the 
publishers wanted as source, both by me before publication and subsequently (though not 
that many more wee corrections have come in this year), that it does not now make sense 
to go back and update or use it as a primary source the excel, unless someone wanted to 
read it all the way through, inserting corrections back into excel. And I would not wish 
that on anyone!

ken

--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, festive50@... wrote:
>
> Richard
> It does seem the best (most logical) way to go.
> I do have a some Word Docs from Ken with basic seesion dates which I've
> managed to import into my database. If Ken has all the sessions/tracks in
> a spreadsheet or database would be great to import into my db.
> I must admit, I'm not a great fan of Wiki.
> At present, I'm on the sun kissed I.O.W. with laptop, tracklistings, about
> 40 Peel tapes and of course Ken's book. With a view to doing some more
> work on this DB.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> > Hi Steve / fellow Peelites,
> >
> > I've been thinking about this for a while, and whilst the Wiki in general
> > is
> > a good idea, I wonder whether we would be better off with a customisable,
> > database backed website to contain all the shows and track listings. My
> > reasoning is thus:
> >  - Once you get everything in a database, it is far easier to perform
> > serches and filters on the data. For instance, you could find all
> > instances
> > of a particular artist being played, filter by shows that have full MP3s
> > available and so on. I'm not sure the Wiki would be as powerful in that
> > regard. Wikis are good for unstructured information, but what we have here
> > is fairly narrow, tightly structured data.
> >  - I believe Phil Edwards already has a huge number of tracklistings in an
> > Access database format already, so I'd imagine this is a good place to
> > expose this and would (hopefully) need limited effort to integrate into
> > the
> > site. To type all that into the Wiki would potentially be prohibitive.
> >  - If we could also get hold of a digital format of Ken's list of all
> > shows
> > and sessions, we cold enter those into the database and allow
> > tracklistings,
> > file links etc to be added to that against each show.
> >
> > So what I imagine would work nicely is to create an interactive database
> > backed website that is protected by user names and passwords. Once
> > authenticated, a user would be able to enter in all the information Steve
> > was planning on allowing in the Wiki against a particular show, except in
> > a
> > controlled format as determined by what we wanted to have in the database
> > (e.g. artist, album, label, session. whether a recording exists, etc etc).
> > The site could then have search / report functionality allowing people to
> > slice and dice the information in various ways.
> >
> > Initially the site would be populated with Ken's exhaustive list of all
> > shows, and Phil's tracklistings and any others trackilisting that other
> > people have compiled digitally. Then we can each do as much as we like in
> > terms of marking the shows that have recordings available and filling in
> > the
> > missing tracklistings as much as we can.
> >
> > Part of my job is web development and this is the sort of thing I have
> > knocked up before. All I'd need is some webspace that allows say ASP.NET
> > and
> > SQL and I could fashion something basic. That and finding the time!
> >
> > Any thoughts? Ken, do you have the appendix of your book with all the
> > shows
> > in a spreadsheet format or something like that? Phil, does this fit in
> > potentially with what you were intending with your tracklistings database?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM, saipanda <saipanda@...> wrote:
> >
> >>   Hi Ken,
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking time to check it out and reply.
> >>
> >> Easy enough to include related links (internal or external) as part the
> >> comments section at
> >> the top, which is intended for people to write introductions (short or
> >> long) on the shows.
> >>
> >> I was thinking if no digital file exists but there is known audio, this
> >> can
> >> be made clear in
> >> file section at the bottom, along the lines of this one):
> >>
> >> http://peel.wikia.com/wiki/15_January_1993
> >>
> >> Thinking links for previous postings can be along the lines of the DVD
> >> Torrent set one at
> >> the bottom of the link in my last message. Easy enough just to say
> >> "Fades
> >> In Slowly" "Peel
> >> Newsgroup" etc and add the link to the front page or wherever.
> >>
> >> See your point about the sessions. There is a whole section for session
> >> details. I'll put a
> >> pointer in there for people to include if any of the tracks have been
> >> commercially released.
> >>
> >> On the file length, I was thinking this might be useful to indicate
> >> whether
> >> a full or partial
> >> version is available. If both, we can just have a double file section.
> >> Thinking this might be
> >> the case for the last night of Perfumed Garden, where there was the
> >> original shared file,
> >> then the full five-hour remastered epic, preserving original Peel links
> >> with updated
> >> releases of the music. (Anyone who wants to sort this out, please feel
> >> free.) Have seen
> >> other similar "remastered" releases lately.
> >>
> >> Anyway, following Ken's suggestions, here's the updated tracklistings
> >> template:
> >>
> >> http://peel.wikia.com/wiki/Show_tracklisting_template
> >>
> >> One thing I wondered is whether people feel strongly about including the
> >> record label and
> >> format (eg, single, LP, CD) and even full album names as part of
> >> listings
> >> for individual
> >> songs, as on the BBC site and the Peel Playlist Archive. I don't have
> >> strong feelings about
> >> this and think it might be more trouble than it's worth for people.
> >> Happy
> >> to go along with
> >> the majority, however.
> >>
> >> Thanks again, Ken. Best to get this stuff considered at an early stage
> >> rather than have
> >> regrets later.
> >>
> >> Happy to have discussions about all this business here or on the
> >> Perfumed
> >> Garden forum,
> >> whichever seems good for people.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Steve W
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In peel@yahoogroups.com <peel%40yahoogroups.com>, "ken garner"
> >> <ken_garner@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > seems ok to me steve. other data you might want to consider squeezing
> >> in
> >> might
> >> include
> >> > a field for Peel links, where of particular interest or amusement
> >> value;
> >> and whether
> >> show
> >> > exists in audio somewhere r has been posted somewhere; maybe if
> >> session
> >> tracks
> >> > available commercially...
> >> >
> >> > track durations? (not essential unless noteworthy)
> >> >
> >> > ken
> >> >
> >> > --- In peel@yahoogroups.com <peel%40yahoogroups.com>, "saipanda"
> >> <saipanda@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Don't want to bore you all to death on the list, so please reply on
> >> the
> >> Perfumed
> >> Garden
> >> > > forum, but just wondered whether people are good with the following
> >> as
> >> a basic
> >> format:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://peel.wikia.com/wiki/6_August_1967
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > >
> >> > > Steve
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>