Talk:KT Tunstall

Scottish or British?

Please, could disputing editors discuss here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Just to add that on KT's official YouTube channel it says "Scottish singer/songwriter" and also her Wiki page here says Scottish so why should the page for her new album say British? Jamie60509 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think there is much to discuss. I know I'm not willing to, I've better things to do. However, all I'm saying, previously when the article read Scottish, there was not dispute...so why now? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because it took X amount of time for someone to object to something (or to defend their objection maybe), does not make the way it was before the inherently better situation. In this particular instance we have a performer well known as a British artist with no abnormally strong association with Scotland or a clear preference to being known as such. This make going with the sovereign state they are from a better choice for nationality. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This does not prove the case one bit. I'm not getting involved, I tried to reason and you have provided no explenation on why you have a problem all of a sudden with Scottish being used in the article! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this is when I came across it maybe? Actually also because I noticed another user who was removing mention of the UK from various articles removed it from here as well. Come on. You are being ridiculous. You keep accusing me of being the sole root of the problem when the fact is that you are equally guilty. That fact that you believe yourself to be in the right does not make your actions not edit warring. You've already expressed that you don't care about it, and yet you continue to refuse even a compromise (referring to other pages with that point). 78.150.28.18 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

[1] "... He welcomes her on stage and KT says "thanks, aren’t American’s so nice, oh, and by the way, I am SCOTTISH"." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I think that should be enough....There are more sources for her being Scottish than British. But yeah ofcouese, you insist in removing them or "they don't prove the point". Well, the point of her being Scottish, yes. It does, so why remove it? I KNOW, because it doesn't support her being British! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

[2] - "KT Tunstall asks Young to Vote". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Martinevans123. I would contest that the context is her objecting to being called English, and so does not reflect her feelings regarding Scottish/British. The second link doesn't really show anything either way. However, I will concede the point as I know it is unlikely that others will agree with me there. @Uh oh Uh Oh Again, I really do not appreciate the immaturity of your comments. The previous "reference" was nothing more then linking to an article where the Author, who is simply not a definitive source on the matter, just so happened to call them Scottish. That it not a sufficient reference. I never disputed that she is Scottish, I merely believe that British is a better term in this case. I will be adding the UK back into the origin tag however, you haven't even come close to a valid argument for why that should not be there. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that should be enough for a block? "I WILL be", not willing to discuss. Do what you like honestly, and I don't care if you are offended by my comments. I find your anti-Scottish views to be offensive. Good day! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you honestly not realise how hypocritical you are being? 78.150.28.18

Why do you honestly think I care? I'm not being hypocritical, and if I am then it doesn't bother me. You can honestly turn around and say "i'm being anti-British", considering I am a British citizen. Enough now please, at the end of the day, we will see what the decision will be! Good day. Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk) 22:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) she still chooses to call herself Scottish not British;

(2) do you seriously contend that support for the SYP is anything other than support for Scottish self-governance over the rule of Westminster? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The link provided shows here saying that she's Scottish in response to being called English. In a situation like that I would not expect someone to say British. 2) Support for devolution is in no way whatsoever a rejection of being British. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely the question here is (at least partly) whether KT self-identifies as Scottish or British. What evidence can you offer? Martinevans123 (talk)

"Scottish independence ... a political aim .. for the country to become an independent sovereign state once again." It's a total rejection of being "British". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Tunstall considers herself "a Scottish musician."

I raise this here rather than edit the article for a number of interrelated reasons, chief being that I really am mainly a Wikipedia user and haven't ever edited an article before, and because there's been such an edit war over this issue (with both "sides", including the one I agree with, behaving rather intemperately), not only on this article but also spilling over to Annie Lennox, Big Country, and Texas (though strangely Sharleen Spiteri has been left alone as simply "Scottish") amongst others for all I know, and I don't really want to step into an open edit war on my first go at saying/doing *anything* on Wikipedia.

Also, I can't pretend to be an impartial observer on the issue as I have met Ms. Tunstall and consider myself a fairly devoted fan of the music and of the person, and as an American of (amongst other things) Scottish descent, I'm a bit sensitive to seeming suggestions that there's really no such thing any more as Scottish identity.

Be that as it may, I think the following quote from an interview with St. Andrews Radio, which discusses Tunstall's deep connections to the Fife scene in general and Fence Collective in particular, may point towards settling the issue at least locally to this article:

http://www.standrewsradio.com/?q=blog/1174/interview-kt-tunstall

"Rollo: Do you regard yourself as a Scottish musician?

KT: I do, yes."

WP:UKNATIONALS states: 'It cannot be called "wrong" to change an existing nationality (e.g.: Welsh to British, or British to Irish) provided a sufficient connection exists.' It seems to me that "sufficient connection" should be founded neither in an excess devotion to nor an excess hostility to expressions of Scottish national pride, independence, or whatever. But it should weigh considerably that Tunstall is very frequently identified both by her self and by media in and out of the UK as Scottish, and that "Scottish" certainly points to "British" by obvious implication as a member of a constituent nation, whereas "British" can sometimes obfuscate Scottish (or Welsh, or NI) identity, unnecessarily I think in Tunstall's case. It also seems quite curious that this issue--a political one having actually little to do with the performers in question--has erupted over Scottish musicians, whilst Marina Diamandis, Charlotte Church, and Dame Shirley Bassey, amongst others, are named on their articles as "Welsh singers" without any similar objection or controversy or claim that someone is trying to "erase the UK" or such. Exercise to the reader, and all that.

Anyway, as I point out above I don't feel it'd be appropriate for me to actually make the edit at this point, but I hope my posting this here might ultimately lead to cooler heads prevailing and this article reverting to KT as "Scottish" as it has been for most of its existence, based not on politics but instead on the facts as they relate to Ms. Tunstall.

Zathras10 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If Elliot Page identifies as a man, why can't KT Tunstall identify as Scottish? I'm surprised this British/Scottish thing is even an issue, given KT's history and statements on the subject. 98.186.127.140 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Height

User: JSowell98 recently attempted to add a height to the infobox. At 5' 2", I think Tunstall's height is notable although, apart from the disputed IMDB, I am struggling to find a "good" source. It seems, however, that height is not a parameter used in Infobox musical artist. So even if there is a good source, we can never know how tall musicians are just from their infobox? It seems a bit odd to put a height anywhere else in an article. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012141318/http://optigon.co.uk:80/341FE4BF-D9E3-4A17-BBFD-83D55A961F57/Elia%20Drew.html to http://www.optigon.co.uk/341FE4BF-D9E3-4A17-BBFD-83D55A961F57/Elia%20Drew.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907121911/http://www.brits.co.uk/nominations/38/ to http://www.brits.co.uk/nominations/38/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza a studio album?

I am not sure if KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza album is properly classified when it is listed as a studio album. My personal opinion is that it is a studio album, but I have seen enough of other evidence to make me want to ask this question. The album consists of B-sides of singles from her Eye to the Telescope album, tracks from her Tracks in July demo album, and acoustical remakes of songs from Eye to the Telescope, plus a promotional single not released on another album and a cover of a Beck song. It was originally only available from her website, although now it can be bought at commercial sites like Amazon.com.(https://www.amazon.com/KT-Tunstalls-Acoustic-Extravaganza-Explicit/dp/B000TENMLQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1470263932&sr=1-1)

The album compiles loose singles and new recordings, but I don't believe this makes it a non-studio album. I can list two other artists who have re-released a previous album as a remade acoustical album and had the albums classified as studio albums; Trinity Revisited by Cowboy Junkies, and Paradise Is There: The New Tigerlily Recordings by Natalie Merchant. I can also list at least one album and artist that released an album that contained previously released singles on their album (released before the album was planned for), and it is still considered a studio album: The Beatles released "Love Me Do" in October 1962, and then included it on their album Please Please Me, which is listed as recorded in February 1963. I am sure there are examples of songs that were on demo albums being re-released on studio albums without invalidating the classification of studio album for the more formally released album. Maybe the reason it is not considered a studio album is that it was initially only released as only available from her website. However, even here I have an example of a private pressing becoming sold by record labels and considered a studio album. Joan Jett recorded her first album Joan Jett but could not get studio's interested in it, so she and her manager sold it at concerts and to personal buyers. After the success of her second album I Love Rock 'n Roll, the labels re-released the album as Bad Reputation, but it is the same album. Therefore, the type of songs, or their origins are not a bar for stopping KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza from being considered a studio album, in my opinion. Nor should the fact that it took a non-traditional route to record label release be an argument. Per Amazon.com, it is being sold now by Relentless/Virgin. To me, this satisfies all the criteria for being a studio album.

However, prior to June 25, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KT_Tunstall_discography&oldid=561270347), it was listed as an Acoustic Album and not a Studio Album in KT Tunstall's discography, and prior to June 24, 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KT_Tunstall&oldid=726466943) it was grouped outside the studio albums in the Other Albums group on KT Tunstall's Wikipedia page, until I moved it, and renumbered the listing of her albums on each of the subsequent studio album pages and elsewhere. I believe that I made the right decision, but when I was looking for references for her new album KIN, at least one magazine article mentioned it was her fifth studio album. While that doesn't mean it was KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza that wasn't counted, I don't think there is any controversy about any of her other studio albums (Eye to the Telescope, Drastic Fantastic, Tiger Suit, and Invisible Empire // Crescent Moon) being true studio albums. So for example, when Stereoboard.com states "KT Tunstall has announced her fifth studio album, 'KIN'." (http://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/200018/9), I have to believe that the writers of the magazine or the editors are using a different list or criteria than what I just used to determine if KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza is a studio album.

Long story short (Too late!), I believe there is some doubt whether KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza should be listed as a studio album on Wikipedia, or if it should be given another category. Do other users consider it to be a studio album? If it is not a studio album, what is it? Mburrell (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste conversation below taken from Binksternet's talk page, User talk:Binksternet#I need help classifying a KT Tunstall album that helped resolve the question asked above. Mburrell (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of the WP:SECONDARY guideline, Mburrell. it's less important what Tunstall's record company says and more important what the third-party reviewers say. Of course, a lot of reviewers will accept the record company's position without question, and primary sources can be of interest to the reader.

There are two angles to chase down... The first is what the album is called starting in 2006 when it came out and extending to now. The second is the way reviewers count the studio albums after Acoustic Extravaganza. Let's look at some online sources:

• Billboard said in March 2006 that the album was "fan-oriented" and that Tunstall was currently writing songs for another album which would be her second. That means Acoustic Extravaganza is not part of the album count.
• Sam's Music has an in-house magazine which reviewed the album a few days ago, calling it a "collection", but also referring to the studio environment. The same writer covers Tunstall in two preceding articles, and in none of them does he assign a sequence number to Tunstall's albums.
• The Skinny called the album a collection.
• Blue Note Records assigns the number 3 to Tiger Suit, which means Acoustic Extravaganza doesn't count. This is not a secondary source.
• Virgin Records says Invisible Empire // Crescent Moon is studio album number 4. This is not a secondary source.
• Broadway World says KIN is the fifth studio album.
• The Daily Record doesn't put Acoustic Extravaganza in the same group as the other "chart albums" which followed.

I'm sure I can go find more sources that put a particular album in a numbered sequence, but these sources here are all in agreement that the fan-oriented acoustic album was not part of the main sequence. Hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I was strongly leaning towards not a studio album, and you confirmed it. So my question is into what round hole do I shove this square peg? If it is a collection, is it a compilation? On KT Tunstall's main page, it divides into Studio Albums and Other Albums, and that is easy. But on her discography page, it is divided into Studio Albums, Live Albums, Extended Plays, and Demo Albums. Do I create a new category for Collections, or Compilations/Collections, or just call it a Compilation? Is there another choice?, I really don't like to call this a compilation, although I guess I may have to. I do appreciate your help and advice, so if you can just help me name what category the album falls into, I will just take the plunge and fix (much reverting) my previous edits. Since I hate calling it a compilation, I am leaning on creating a category for Compilations/Collections. Mburrell (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the crux of it. A compilation album is primarily tracks that were recorded in various earlier sessions, with maybe a new track or two thrown in. The album in question doesn't fit that description, since it was recorded all in the same place with the same basic crew, over the span of a few days. I guess the term "collection" is applied by our sources because the album contains songs that were previously offered to the customer but in different form. There are enough of those to make people think of it as a collection.

I would agree with your determination to set up a new section at the discography, under the name Compilations/Collections, even though Tunstall does not yet have a Greatest Hits album or any other album which qualifies as a compilation. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, this seems to resolve the question of how to classify KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza, as a collection album and not a studio album. I will wait a few days for more comments, then if we are agreed, this weekend I will change the articles to indicate that KT Tunstall has five studio albums, and one collection album. Mburrell (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/chart_beat/chat_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003725821
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207223134/http://nobelpeaceprize.org/concert/ to http://nobelpeaceprize.org/concert/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brits.co.uk/nominations/38/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509154210/http://www.kttunstall.com/diary/2008-01/ to http://www.kttunstall.com/diary/2008-01/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929084538/http://www.kttunstall.com/story/ to http://www.kttunstall.com/story/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stv.tv/out/showArticle.jsp?source=opencms&articleId=%2Fout%2Fhotnow%2Fmusic%2FnewArticle9362187

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

David Orr

Is David Orr her birth father? The article doesn't say, or maybe I missed it. This should be clarified because we read that Tunstall "disowns" him. If he's unconnected to her by blood, it's hard to see what there would be to disown. Thanks. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

School

"she spent her last year of high school in the United States[11] at the Kent School, a selective boarding school in Kent, Connecticut" is misleading as it implies that the year at Kent was taken instead of the final year at her school in Dundee. ESU scholarships don't work like that (I know, I went on one to Kent as well) - you finish your normal schooling in your own country and then spend an *additional* year on the scholarship.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828215209/http://www.sundayherald.com/ to http://www.sundayherald.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312040122/http://billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=646480&model.vnuAlbumId=761102 to http://billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=646480&model.vnuAlbumId=761102
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212161128/http://www.iprong.com/article.php?id=3125 to http://iprong.com/article.php?id=3125
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624001505/http://www.stv.tv/content/out/ to http://www.stv.tv/content/out/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sessions.edenproject.com/kt-eco-tip.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202050152/http://music.yahoo.com/promo-42778155-53-20080128-autoplay to http://music.yahoo.com/promo-42778155-53-20080128-autoplay

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed Mburrell (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203055534/http://www.dailycampus.com/focus/kt-tunstall-s-new-album-reveals-dark-side-1.1670453 to http://www.dailycampus.com/focus/kt-tunstall-s-new-album-reveals-dark-side-1.1670453
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926231039/http://www.harpmagazine.com/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=6170 to http://www.harpmagazine.com/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=6170
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831132728/http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/10018.html to http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/10018.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918171020/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012343584 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012343584
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810151704/http://innocentwords.com/kt-tunstall-releases-new-video-for-evil-eye-from-golden-state-ep-out-now/ to http://innocentwords.com/kt-tunstall-releases-new-video-for-evil-eye-from-golden-state-ep-out-now/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed the archive urls and the placement in the article Mburrell (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KT Tunstall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930041117/http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/bal-artslife-grammylist1207,0,816734.htmlstory?coll=bal-features-specials to http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/bal-artslife-grammylist1207,0,816734.htmlstory?coll=bal-features-specials
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109223402/http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/funded-projects/case-studies/cape-farewell-disko-bay/ to http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/funded-projects/case-studies/cape-farewell-disko-bay/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Category

@Mburrell: Regarding this edit, KT Tunstall is not a work of KT Tunstall, so I have removed this article from the category and instead added it as the main article on top of the page of Category:Works by KT Tunstall, see this edit. That is how works category pages are usually designed. Hope this is clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, thank you for the explanation. I did not understand your reasoning initially, and no edit summary was provided, so I just saw a unexplained confusing removal of a category. Now I know where you are coming from. Again, thanks. Mburrell (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Years active"

The article says "Throughout Tunstall's twenties, she played in indie music bands including Elia Drew and Tomoko. She focused on songwriting, as well as performing with members of the fledgling Fence Collective." If that really was throughout her twenties, surely that must have included from 1995 onwards? Unfortunately, that archived ref no longer works for me, so I can't check what it actually says. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if throughout is a sufficient descriptor to indicate starting in 1995, here are three citations that could work.

"Tunstall spent her 20s in indie bands Elia Drew, Tomoko, Red Light Stylus and the Fence Collective before Relentless Records heard about her through their talent scouts and made her an offer."

"She started her career in 2000. Throughout her twenties, she played in indie bands including Elia Drew and Tomoko, and focused on songwriting, as well as performing with members of the fledgling Fence Collective including work in the Skuobhie Dubh Orchestra with King Creosote, who recently supported her UK tour."

"Throughout her twenties she mostly played in independent bands including Elia Drew and Tomoko, and focused on songwriting."

The problem is the Vogue citation which first states starting the career in 2000, then states throughout her twenties. This is why I am not sure that throughout can be used to imply starting in 1995, but just that indicates that in her twenties she performed with some early bands. Mburrell (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So, this hinges on our understanding of "years active". I am assuming that playing in public, with any band, means she was "active". If they were "early bands" they were a part of her early musical activity. I'd see "career" as when she started making a living from music, but that might be a bit of a grey area. Template:Infobox musical artist says just this: "Period(s) during which the act was or has been active. Only calendar year ranges or a single calendar year should be listed; for example, do not distinguish between the period Paul McCartney was in the Beatles and his solo career." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References