Talk:St. Vincent (musician)

no cross-reference
i'm just wondering why there's no entry for st. vincent with a pointer to this one. i came to wikipedia looking for the info on this page, but i tried searching for various variations on "st vincent" and none of them gave me any indication that this page might be here.

i'm not a good enough wikipedia editor to do it myself, or i would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iahklu (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See the disambiguation page at St_Vincent. Strobilus (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
This article was the subject of this episode of "The Wikipedia Files". --Ysangkok (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edna St. Vincent Millay
I haven't found a source explaining the exact significance of her stage name— but St. Vincent was the middle name of the feminist poet Edna St. Vincent Millay, who preferred to be called "Vincent" rather than Edna. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guessing that that has any relevance here would be WP:OR. If you "haven't found" a source, try reading the article you're commenting on -- the one your comment here is supposed to be aimed at improving. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT?
This page is in the category: LGBT musicians from the United States. However, the article itself, within the Personal life section, contains a quite from Clark herself: "I don't really identify as anything." Is there a source for LGBT categorization of Clark? If not, it should likely be removed. – WikkanWitch (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote in the article implies something rather strongly, but we go with self-identification. I've removed it as unsourced. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this means anything, but a news report in the Daily Mail today indicates that she was until recently in a relationship with model/actress Cara Delevigne. See here. May not be enough to justify putting her in the category. Certainly she shouldn't be put in such a category without the article indicating why. Whether one considers the Daily Mail a reliable source I'll let others debate! 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We need unambiguous self-identification. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I recall Ms. Clark saying she doesn't identify as being straight or gay, and she implied she dates members of both sexes, so I still think we shouldn't identify her as LGBT, because she herself doesn't seem to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDDD:6850:DA30:62FF:FE5F:781F (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems the majority of people who are consciously bi don't even identify as it, due to some bizarre and restrictive notions about what the term means (or a particular dislike for "labelling" that straight/gay people don't seem to have to the same degree). As someone who is both bi and also identifies as it, that's always kind of bugged me. It just leads to ridiculous situations where we have a woman who dates both men and women and yet can't be added to the LGBT category, because she doesn't identify as anything. Whatever she calls it, including "nothing", she's essentially bi. Pan, omni, whatever; all different shades of the same thing. And even being generous, she's still at least within the extremely broad LGBT umbrella.


 * I'm not going to add the category, though, because rules are there for a reason, no matter how seemingly counter-intuitive. Just putting my two cents in, in case somebody better acquainted with the rules thinks there's some wiggle room.194.75.236.70 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We use unambiguous self-identification. This is our established community consensus. Any variation from that would require a broader consensus than we can establish here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "We use unambigious self-identification"  What's more unambiguous than her publicly admitting she's in an intimate romantic relationship with another woman?  It can't get any more unambiguous. Also, where is the line drawn between ambiguous and unambiguous on Wikipedia???  JokeKah (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming there are a limited number of orientations and identities, that these are static and that both parties fit neatly into one orientation and one identity. Your synthesis is not self-identification, let alone unambiguous self-identification.
 * As for the "line" of demarcation in ambiguity, you're asking for the line between a mountain and a hill. As we are talking about the biography of a living person, I'd have to say "when in doubt, leave it out." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

She shouldn't be listed now should she? Ana jerie (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on St. Vincent (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131125183513/http://www.republicrecords.com:80/tuesday-round-up-all-the-days-music-news-you-need/ to http://www.republicrecords.com/tuesday-round-up-all-the-days-music-news-you-need/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Cara Delevingne as partner in infobox
As it is confirmed that St vincent and Cara Delevingne has been dating since 2015 could adding Cara Delevingne as her Partner in the infobox be okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean1997 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The partner field is usually understood to be about unmarried life partners, not ordinary dating relationships, and the cited coverage only supports that St. Vincent is Ms. Delevingne's girlfriend, not something more significant. Rebb  ing  21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Impossible - As I tried to explain to you before,, you cannot add the "partner" parameter to this infobox, it simply is not part of the infobox. You added it repeatedly in the past (under your account, without logging in and as a sockpuppet during one of your two blocks) and it simply will not show. Go back to any of your many, many, MANY attempts to add this, click "dif" and look at the article: the info you've been obsessively adding DOES. NOT. SHOW. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Our infobox was recently switched from infobox musical artist to infobox person with an embedded infobox musical artist—a beneficial change, I think—and infobox person has partner. Rebb  ing  00:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, that change was made without discussion or explanation by an IP editor who has now been blocked as a sock of the cause of death vandal. From what I've looked at, I'm willing to be is a sock of the same editor. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How interesting! However, unless incompetence and a keen interest in twenty-something lesbian and bisexual women's love lives is a feint, I find it hard to imagine Dean1997 is a "cause" sock. In addition to his significant technical and collaborative failings in "adding" the partner field here and at Cara Delevingne, check out the unusual double-signing here, this question, his confirmed foray into sockpuppetry, and his for adding the partner parameter over at Cara Delevingne shortly after his sockpuppetry block.  Rebb  ing  14:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Have i been blocked then I'm a bit confused over this? Dean1997 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for a week for making this edit under another account, and you were blocked for a month for refusing to get the point when you made the edit yet again. Remember that? You were notified about both of these blocks on your talk page before you blanked it. If you're actually asking if you're still blocked—a surprising question as clearly you can edit—the answer is no. Also, please sign your messages only once; there's also no need to type your username out and sign. Don't type this:
 * Instead, write this:
 * Thanks. Rebb  ing  19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rebb  ing  19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rebb  ing  19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

we cannot say that they "are" in a relationship or that "as of 2015 they are in a relationship" because we do not have a source saying that today, July 30, 2016, they "are" in a relationship. Instead, we can say that they "were" in a relationship as of 2015. CErtainly, we could dig up a source dated March 14, 44 BCE saying that Julius Caesar is the ruler of Rome. We could use that to say that Caesar was the ruler of Rome in 44 BCE, but it would be absurd to say that Caesar is the ruler of Rome in any context. I am not sure why this particular relationship is of such a driving interest to you, but reigning your edits in is getting rather tiresome. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As of...
As yet another obsessive sock has had problems understanding this, let's walk through this. The accepted version reads, "As of 2015, she was in a relationship..." The disruptive sock's preferred version is "As of 2015, she is in a relationship..." Why does this matter? Well, the editor in question is obsessed with this relationship. "Is", however, is not sourced. "As of 1790, George Washington was President of the United States." This tells us that Washington was President in 1790. This is verifiable. "As of 1790, George Washington is President of the United States." This tells us that Washington has been the President of the United States for over 200 years. This is not verifiable and is clearly nonsense. Much to the sock's dismay, this relationship might have ended sometime in the past 2 years. Or not. We do not know. One thing we do know is that it is time to find something new to obsess over. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for writing this up. I too am somewhat puzzled at the fixation given to this small detail, and I agree that "was" is the appropriate construction here. I would prefer to say: "Clark began dating Delevingne in Month, year," but the sources don't give us that. Also, I took the liberty of updating the sentence with a more recent source, which may stave off this sort of nonsense for a little while. Rebb  ing  20:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that despite the claim is indeed correct with "was", it (and so does its source, subsequently) still gives a fallacious impression to whoever is reading the article and does not know about the subject beforehand. And it is also indeed true that there might have been gaps in the relationship during its period, but this still doesn't make up for the deceptiveness of leaving out the information concerning the earlier stages of the relationship. And there is no questioning the existence of sources of them.


 * Although it is questionable if the information should be removed for these reasons, I still propose that the sentence should be changed into something that would describe the case more accurately and informatively (or alternatively removed, which is not something I suggest though).


 * In addition, there is evidence that St. Vincent is no longer dating Cara Delevingne (as I noted in my edit on the article page, reverted by SummerPhD, which makes the claim even more fallacious since it still gives the impression that they might be dating.


 * As a side note: I am not the person you are referring to as a "sock". Nena000000 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. This is very simple. We have a reliable source—the Marie Claire piece—dated August 2016 stating that St. Vincent and Ms. Delevingne were dating as of that date, and that is the only claim made anent this matter by the current version of the article. It doesn't assert or imply anything more than that, and, contrary to what you appear to be responding to in your "counternote," the article doesn't suggest when their relationship began. There's no deception in not covering the beginning of their relationship, and there's no falsity in the current version of the article (note the critical "as of" clause) even if they have since split up. If you have reliable sources that provide more detail about this, and you think they should be considered, feel free to link them. Rebb  ing  23:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable source that says they were dating as of that date. That they were dating as of that date is verifiable, so that is what we say.


 * IMO, the fact that at one particular time she was seeing one particular person is trivial and best omitted from the article as such. Independent reliable sources do not discuss this relationship, one source mentions it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sorry, but no."


 * Sorry, but yes. First of all, I specifically mentioned in my post that "the claim is indeed correct with "was""; I never claimed that the clause is false nor did I claim that the source is not reliable.


 * "There's no deception in not covering the beginning of their relationship"


 * There is. Relationship (in this case, two people dating), by general definition, implies a continuum, and generally it can be thought of having a beginning and an end (in the future or the past (theoretically it could also be infinite (or only have either a beginning or and end))). Basic psychology: there is a contradiction between the clause containing information concerning the existence of a relationship at a certain point in time and the reader's schema concerning the meaning of a relationship, which forces the reader to make up a continuum or completely disregard the information (which is practically not possible).


 * It would be absolutely absurd to think that the relationship would have lasted for only an infinitesimal measure of time or, for example, a second. And this is what I mean with a fallacious impression, as the continuum, whatever it might be, is pretty much always condemned to be flawed.


 * Concerning the sources related to their relationship having started as early as 2015, there actually is one in the article at this very moment: the reference number 80 (The Australian Cosmopolitan article), which probably does match at least some standards of a verifiable and reliable source, as it does include interview material.


 * The Mirror (14 December 2015) (not as reliable, still a source.)
 * Vogue (18 June 2015) (close to reliable)
 * US Magazine (19 June 2015) (same thing)
 * There are multiple other sources as well, some more reliable than others. Therefore one could say that it is quite well-established information that St. Vincent and Cara Delevingne have been dating in 2015. This information is also on the Cara Delevingne Wikipedia article page.


 * While it is true that there might have been a gap or gaps in the relationship (in this case, the parts of it practically could be considered separate relationships) in between the dates of the reliable sources, it does not change the fact that it still gives a more accurate impression on the subject to include the information their relationship having been active in 2015 in addition to 2016, or alternatively only in 2015, which would then direct the achieved implication of the continuum towards the future, being slightly more accurate, although far from perfect.


 * If and/or when reliable information on St. Vincent's relationship with Kristen Stewart turns up, I'd suggest that information concerning this quite apparently ended relationship between St. Vincent and Cara Delevingne should be excluded from the article, since I do not think it is the point of the "personal life" section to be a list of a person's ex-partners, and rather focus on the current situation. Nena000000 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment. As I understand it, the distinction is when something is being written, not when the event occurred. Trump is president of the US in 2017, means I am writing in 2017, when he is President. It makes no statement about how long he has been or will be President. Trump was president of the US in 2017, means I am writing sometime after 2017. It makes no statement on whether he is still president, or when his presidency started, or ended, or will end, or whether he had discontinuous terms.   The same is true if it's worded  "as of" except that the as of serves  as a marker to check the information in the future.
 * When we're reporting what some source said, the clearest thing may be to quote their wording. Dates of relationships and similar events can give rise here to long disputes. The simplest thing is to give the source, the date of the source and the exact wording. People can find out more by checking the reference.  In all biographies of living people, it is important in be careful not to use personal or unpublished information, especially in relationship contexts. If, for example, one should happen to know personally that a relationship has ended or begun, and there is so far no reliable source, one cannot include it. Our aim is not precisely to be accurate, but to be an accurate presentation of the published sources.  DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart
Let's discuss reliable sources before adding this, although I have to say that the evidence is starting to stack up now. There is the film that Clark is scoring as referenced here that mentions Stewart. Karst (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant content reverted (Guitar Builder: Anti-Sexist Innovator)
A new section on this page with information regarding Annie Clarck/St. Vincent as guitar builder and anti sexist innovator with references to relevant sources has just been reverted less than 24h after the edit. I am a bit outraged as I think that this is once again a clear example of systemic bias an sexism in Wikipedia. This is how womens history got to be erased time after time. I would love to see the edit back as I have no doubt the tone is not promotional and the new imformation improves the page. (((Liquen))) (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point, I oppose inclusion of the challenged section. Whether or not covering St. Vincent's guitar production is appropriate, the addition was far too detailed, contra WP:UNDUE, and far too heavy on pathos. I also must most strenuously protest the insinuation that sexism had anything to do with the removal of this content. Rebb  ing  23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edit. The bot was from the last edit made before the addition.


 * Initially, I thought it might be a copyright violation from a fansite or press release from the guitar company. This is an encyclopedia. We aim for neutrality. She is working with a guitar company to sell a "signature" model guitar. She says it is designed with (what she believes to be) "the" female body in mind.


 * I see nothing to indicate she is "to date...the only woman to have designed a line of signature guitars". Yes, the article lists a few artists who have similar marketing deals and those listed are men. Deciding this makes St.Vincent "Guitar Builder: Anti-Sexist Innovator" is quite the stretch. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit I made was in good faith and modeled after the Les Paul entry. The edit paraphrased several new citations, none close edits, and it wove several sources about women guitarists, sexism in the industry, and the innovation of being the first female to build a guitar. If your POV about the edit was taken to its logical extreme, the Les Paul article would need to be reverted. Inherent bias around gender politics is a common trouble and you don't have to perceive your own bias -- no one does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Paul#Guitar_builder


 * It would be so much more productive to allow this edit as a good faith edit given that NO ONE since 2015 added St. Vincent's accomplishment and to omit it by reverting it here seems sexist. I am not calling anyone a sexist, but the outcome of the revert seems biased. It's a valid assessment whether true or not. I just presented at Wikipedia Day in NYC and we discussed the need, well I brought up the need, to think of NPOV as NPOVs. There is no absolute truth about neutrality. It's contextual. What's neutral changes when the knower changes around what is known. You may contest that as fact, but it is something to seriously consider. There is NO absolute NPOV.


 * As the WP page on NPOV points out: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  My edit did that. --sheridanford (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see nothing to indicate she is "to date...the only woman to have designed a line of signature guitars". This is not a question of NPOV, this is a question of verifiability.


 * We are not here to discuss the Les Paul entry or reductions to absurdity (the logical extreme of there being absolute NPOV is that there is no NPOV and, therefore, no way to aim for NPOV).


 * We are also not here to determine whether my action "seems sexist" while not being sexist so as to merely seem to be biased.


 * Finally, we are not here to determine whether to keep your additions or omit them. We enjoy the privilege of including all, some or none of the material and using the exact wordings you selected, completely different wordings or something in between.


 * I have no desire for turgid rhetoric re gender politics, motivations, etc. I accept as givens that every -ism is part of the subtext of every article. I assume every editor here aims for neutrality, civility, etc., unless/until demonstrated otherwise.


 * Now that we have that out of the way...


 * Your addition] was fairly lengthy. I won't go through all of it immediately, but here are some notes on the first several lines:
 * St. Vincent is notable for her music. This should not be the top of her "Career" section. Some of it may belong in the section, some of it not. None of it, however, should be where it was.
 * "Guitar Builder: Anti-Sexist Innovator": Vincent is not a "guitar builder" any more than Paul Newman was a chef. Vincent was involved in the design of one guitar, sold under a business deal as her "signature" model. Vincent is not an "anti-sexist innovator" based on this one project, much as we do not bill Newman as a "pedogogical pioneer".
 * "Annie Clark a.k.a. St. Vincent" is unnecessarily cumbersome. Once we clarify who "David Robert Jones" is, we quickly refer to him as David Bowie or "Bowie".
 * Vincent did not release the guitar. Ernie Ball Inc. released the guitar.
 * "...made for her own female body and the bodies of those whom the original design of guitars was never meant for--women, girls, and men with smaller frames." The source presumably gets into this on page two (which doesn't want to load for me). This seems to be a very verbose way to say it was made to fit women's bodies. In the interview, however, Vincent is more focused on the design influences, color, etc. I'd suggest you may have been more focused on making her an "anti-sexist innovator" than "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * There's plenty more. Yes, we need to address various biases in Wikipedia. We are not, however, here to address various biases in society. Vincent is, first and foremost, a musician. I am not here to bury or praise anyone. I am here to build an encyclopedia. While we are free to have our opinions on bras, they are, first and foremost, undergarments. We don't color that with bell hooks and such until the appropriate section and we need to strike a balance there. If Vincent identifies as an "anti-sexist innovator", we can say that. We should not say Vincent is an "anti-sexist innovator" and, if there are no sources using that term, we shouldn't use it at all.
 * So far, I have all of that boiled down to "In March 2016, Ernie Ball Inc. released the St. Vincent signature guitar." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this thread until I made edits to the page, or I might have weighed in here first beforehand. Apologies for that. I think that the guitar should be listed on the page under equipment, as it is a notable thing, to have a signature guitar line, especially with this company. That said, I agree that the prior entry Kyra had written was located in the wrong place, was too detailed and off-topic, and many of the citations were circular in what they were pointing to. So I hope that this inclusion of an Equipment section is okay, and has the correct focus and tone to be a positive contribution to this entry.
 * I also did a few nits to clean up the double listing of the Authority control in the footer area and adjusted some headings to be Sentence case.
 * Kyra is active in the WM NYC community and comes to editathons. When I see her next in person I would love to skillshare with her on constructive approaches to adding content like this. It's obvious she's a passionate and capable Wikipedia editor. I suspect that fellow editors including myself have not provided enough support to her efforts, have not taken the time to support her enthusiasm. I feel bad about that, and will try and do better and have some IRL convos with Kyra to make her additions to the encyclopedia be more positive – and not get deleted like this, after so much work. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . This seems to cover the topic nicely. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I know this has blown over, but I overlooked the edit and concur that it was far too lengthy, misplaced (career timelines and milestones should move chronologically), and grandiose. Because St. Vincent designed a guitar made for the female body does not necessarily make her an "anti-sexist innovator." Also, sources be damned, she is not the first woman to design a signature guitar—Courtney Love helped design a Fender Squier model called the Vista Venus in 1998, which was made with neck aimed for female players (based on hand size). --Drown Soda (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Peacockery
I have removed the following text from the lead section: "St. Vincent has opened shows for such acts as The Black Keys, Arcade Fire, Andrew Bird, The National, Jolie Holland, John Vanderslice, Xiu Xiu, Death Cab for Cutie, Cristina Donà, Grizzly Bear and Robert Plant. Additionally, her track 'The Strangers' was sampled by Kid Cudi on the song 'MANIAC' for his 2010 album Man on the Moon II: The Legend of Mr. Rager. In 2015, she performed with Wire in Chicago, as part of the band's Drill Festival. Clark has been heralded as 'one of the past decade's most distinct and innovative guitarists.'"

For openers, the lead section is intended to summarize the most important aspects of the subject.

The laundry list of acts she has opened for -- actually, she has opened for acts such as them, there are obvious thousands of other A-list acts Clark has opened for, right? -- is nothing more than peacockery. This is similar to the actor who appeared in films with a laundry list of A-listers. The list is intended to reflect notoriety on the person appearing with/opening for the others. Summarizing this trivia would involve something along the lines of "St. Vincent has opened for numerous other acts." Wow, really? A musician act who has opened for other musicians?

One of her tracks songs was sampled by someone else? Should our articles on Prokofiev, Shakespeare, The Bible, Byron, Nabokov, etc. include that Sting has quoted them? Of course not.

She performed with another band at one concert. For similar reasons, Eric Clapton's article should start with the list of bands he performed with: Roberta Flack, The Beatles, the Plastic Ono Band, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, The Band, Bob Dylan, Robert Cray, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, B. B. King, the Bee Gees, Phil Collins, and several dozen more. That would be absurd.

One carefully selected quote lauding the subject is not material for the lead anymore than one carefully selected quote disparaging the subject would be.

All of these trivial details and one-offs are included here not because they are significant (how many people have opened for Robert Plant? Dozens? Hundreds?)), but to build up the subject here. I removed them because they are trivial, not to tear St. Vincent down. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice work and nicely justified. I agree wholeheartedly. Rebb  ing  14:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A Little Help from my Friends @WikimediaNYC
Hey User:DGG, Thanks for continuing to offer your help as a senior contributor to WP. I have not been diligent about rewriting my significant edit here. Here was the last difference between my edit and the revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Vincent_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=762490952

Any suggestions for tactics in my expository writing style or my persuasive writing in negotiation with admins would be appreciated. sheridanford (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Split discography
With six albums and a number of charting songs, should the discography section be WP:SPLIT into a new article? If tables are used instead of lists, this section would be longer than many standalone discography articles and too long on this page. f eminist 14:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I strongly support a split for the reasons you stated. I have gone ahead and moved the appropriate content to a standalone St. Vincent discography page and started a table for the charted singles. Cheers,  gongshow  talk  07:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No it shouldn't don't even know how she sounds Ana jerie (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on St. Vincent (musician). 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/20120213121835/http://treblezine.com/reviews/2175-St__Vincent_Marry_Me.html to http://treblezine.com/reviews/2175-St__Vincent_Marry_Me.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221190502/http://www.plugawards.com/general_vote.php to http://www.plugawards.com/general_vote.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023084918/http://www.ithacatimesartsblog.com/interview-with-gregg-gillis-of-girl-talk/st-vincent-and-her-mutant-sounds-an-interview-with-annie-clark to http://www.ithacatimesartsblog.com/interview-with-gregg-gillis-of-girl-talk/st-vincent-and-her-mutant-sounds-an-interview-with-annie-clark/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014103757/http://www.halftheskymovement.org/blog/entry/30-songs-30-days-for-half-the-sky1 to http://www.halftheskymovement.org/blog/entry/30-songs-30-days-for-half-the-sky1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St. Vincent (musician). 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 tag to http://www.evri.com/media/article;jsessionid=4vrk0mzdalyh?title=Interview%3A+Annie+Clark+%28of+St.+Vincent%29&page=http%3A%2F%2Fconsequenceofsound.net%2F2011%2F11%2Finterview-annie-clark-of-st-vincent%2F&referring_uri=%2Fperson%2Fglenn-branca-0x3810c%3Bjsessionid%3D4vrk0mzdalyh&referring_title=Evri
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222123153/http://www.4ad.com/st-vincent/ to http://www.4ad.com/st-vincent/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

explanation
excised coverage of St. Vincent's relationship with Cara Delevingne with the edit summary "Personal life: gossip, no significance indicated".

I think this was ill-advised. The rest of the paragraph is about her gender-fluidity, so well-referenced coverage of a cross-gender relationship is highly relevant.

I restored the excision. Geo Swan (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)