Talk:Vanessa Hudgens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RECENT EDITS I'VE DONE

So, I somehow added some more info on this article and expanded it. But Juanancho has been reverting some of my edits. So, could anyone LEGIT and PROFESSIONAL and basically knows EVERYTHING about WIKIPEDIA rules, could you please...please...evaluate the page? It would be awesome to hear from you. Kikkokalabud (talk)

About the nude photos

How exactly did it get into the internet? I never understand how famous people's dirty fotografias and videos get online and an Average Joe could have kiddie porn pics and go on unseen. It's like stuff like that is purposely leaked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megagents (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Exactly what I think! There are probably millions of non-famous people posing nude online, and no one talks about it. As for putting the nude photos on the article, I disagree. Kids use this website. KIDS! I wouldn't want my childen seeing those kind of pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.41.133 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then don't let them use Wikipedia. Or maybe - just maybe - monitor your kids while they are using the computer. That's what a responsib le parent would do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'm a 12 year old and, when it came out, i was what? 10 or 11? As, quoted there, she doesn't like talking about it, i'm sure that she doesnt like anyone else talking about it so, why doesnt everyone just shut up about it?? jeez- larissa

So we have all of these strongly worded warnings commented into the article: "Inserting the nude photos of Ms. Hudgens into this article, or linking to a page with these photos, may be a violation of Wikipedia policy. PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO THESE PHOTOS, OR YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING." and boxed at the top of this page: "Do not post or link to the picture! It will be reverted on sight and has absolutely no encyclopedic use! If you post a link, you will be warned. Upload it to Wikipedia, you are risking a definite block."

Both of these need some sort of reference to specific policies and/or decisions (backed by some kind of authority). Otherwise, it's just "whoever" assuming some mantle of authority and stating something that may or may not be true as an absolute fact. It seems to me we should cite a reliable source for this. But I'm like that.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, dont even take those banners seriously. the code is written on the page, its just some fan trying to protect her clean image♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, why isn't the image of encyclopedic use? It is notable.It happened. It is mentioned in the article. She took the pictures. They have beenin the news. What's the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An image like that isn't encyclopedic, we would be pressed to have a fair use rationale for that, and there could be possible legal circumstances. Simply because something happened does not justify its insertion into the article. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my question: how is it not encyclopedic? Let's change the item of inclusion, say, an image of Heidi Klum or some other actress doing dope off a coffee table, and the image is in the news and on the internet. The actress discusses the matter and folk talk about the subject matter presented by the image. We include that image because it is notable, verifiable and reliable. Wikipedia is not censored. That Hudgens took the pictures (on purpose, mind you, so the inclusion presents no legal liability to Wikipedia whatsoever) of herself is a fact. That they were released on the internet is a fact. That they made national headlines and were news stories is notable fact. Because it is notable, it is includable. Since when is nudity - albeit inadvisable nudity - reason for non-inclusion? Please feel free to cite policy that covers the inclusion of nudity where it's value is of notable quality. I scoured BLP, and found nothing that precludes its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then would you upload the image and place it in the article? Simply because something is notable does not mean an image must accompany it. As I said, there are also fair use problems. Besides, BLP reminds us that we aren't a tabloid and that we should respect basic human dignity. I'm not a fan of Vanessa Hudgens. I don't even know much about her; I just took it upon myself to watchlist this page because of the massive amounts of vandalism. If I may change the item of inclusion to, say, Paris Hilton's sex tape, it is notable, verifiable, and reliable. Why don't we have a screenshot then? Wikipedia isn't censored, but this doesn't mean every time someone leaks a photo of a celebrity doing scandalous things we upload and display it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the image is no problem. If you could find a site to link to that had permission to post the picture from the copyright holder, you could link that that. To post the image itself here would be dicey, not because of the nudity, but because of the fair use policy. Hudgens certainly hasn't released the image under a GFDL license, so we would have to claim that the lack of the image was a substantial detriment to a reader's understanding of the topic. Now, exactly what understanding do you think the absence is detracting from? That is as close to the "non-encyclopedic" argument as I will come: an illustration is supposed to enhance understanding, and I don't see how this one will. For free images, it's editorial judgment, and I don't get too excited one way or the other. This one isn't free, so presumption is that the image cannot be included unless there is a compelling reason to do so.Kww (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was playing a bit of Devils Advocate about the image. I think there are two problems with the image, and neither of them were presented here. The argument about basic human dignity isn't really onpoint here; if you don't want naked pics of yourself out there, don't be an actor and take naked pics. Pretty much common sense. We aren't to be held to account if someone is stupid enough to metaphorically say 'y'know what? Screw my career, let's roll tape!' The pictures weren't taken under duress or without her knowledge; we don't save that loudmouth conservative talk personality when he gets caught popping pills or an actor when he gets outed for tapping his kids' nanny. Advocating a picture of someone taken out of context (like the lack of proper undergarments noticed whence exiting from a car) is a denial of human dignity. Advocating the inclusion of something someone did while Under the Influence of Stupid relieves of caring about their human dignity. It would be non-neutral to ignore it.
The reason why we shouldn't include it is that the images were likely taken by her while she was under 18. In some jurisdictions, that's child porn, and a bozo no-no. As well, including this image would act as a catalyst, a slippery slope for the allowance of trivial non-pertinent pictures using the same advocacy of Operating While Under the Influence of Stupid (or UIS, as in 'U is a dumb-ass', as I like to refer to it). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not child porn in Florida, USA. Which is the law we conform to. Naked by itself is not porn by US Supreme Court ruling and is therefore also not child porn. The strong and sufficient argument is justification of the fair use exemption to the use of copyrighted images as outlined by KWW above. The fact that the picture was taken is well referenced. We don't need the picture for proof and there is nothing that that picture can give us that is not completely covered by a textual description. Thus fair use exemption fails and we can't use it. --NrDg 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to cite the caselaw you noted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See Massachusetts v. Oakes and some discussion at Salon. Basically the pictures must have lascivious display of genitals or pubic area and nudity is not even required to meet that test. The Hudgens picture displayed the pubic area but not in a lascivious manner. Of course the lascivious part could be debated but I did see the pictures and didn't see it. --NrDg 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Human dignity. We are not a tabloid source, if you want to see the pictures then you can find them. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why the fact that she did it as a mistake justifies its inclusion in the article. We aren't here to hammer in people's mistakes. We're wandering into the area of personal interpretation, but making a mistake does not mean that you don't deserve human dignity. Additionally, we aren't ignoring the fact that she did take nude photographs of herself; we've covered and cited it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant we should cover. But what I meant we shouldn't cover was the pictures --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make a separate page to describe (or show pictures) of the photo scandal. that way everyone's happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtroo (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to clear this matter up. We all know that she took those photos and sent them to zac Efron or whatever. She knows she made a mistake and nearly lost her job and tonnes of stuff because of it. She's already dealt with enough and she has learn't her lesson. so we should just leave it at that rather than try to stick our nosses into celebrities buisness. They do have a life as well you know, they are still humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman93 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Being a celebrity doesn't make someone exempt from scrutiny. They're not on a higher level than the laypeople except financially. It's a notable event, and covering it won't harm anything. Leaving out facts would be losing the neutral point of view. Normally I'd support including the image, but considering the age of her audience, it may not be prudent to include it. The news of the nude pictures would shock them enough, I'd wager. 70.40.236.187 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I know how it happened: She was taking the photos to give to zac efron and paperatrzzi was looking in her window snapped the photo put it on the web and thats how it happened or that's what my friend told me. (Twilight578 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)) ~edward cullen

More common name

I noticed that the template for Vanessa was moved to Template:Vanessa Hudgens saying that she goes by "Vanessa Hudgens" (see diff), plus, there are songs here don't have "Anne" in the title when saying it's a song by her, such as "Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song)" and "Come Back to Me (Vanessa Hudgens song)". Also, I've heard her credited more often as "Vanessa Hudgens" than "Vanessa Anne Hudgens". There isn't consistency at the moment, which should be fixed: would it make sense to move this to "Vanessa Hudgens", or move the other pages to include "Anne" in the title? Thoughts? Acalamari 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I slightly support moving the article to Vanessa Hudgens. Please note, though, that I do not consider myself particularly informed on this topic. I'm basing my opinion on that her official site refers to her as Vanessa Hudgens rather than Vanessa Anne Hudgens. --Yamla (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing: I've heard her credited more as "Vanessa Hudgens" than "Vanessa Anne Hudgens", and on some pages (including this one) I've even had to sort out copy-and-paste moves. I'd support moving to Vanessa Hudgens if consensus develops towards that title. Acalamari 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this should be moved to Vanessa Hudgens per WP:NCP. Her official site and nearly all the cited sources refer to her without the Anne. Spellcast (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. Acalamari 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally! A source for "Identified"

I would usually get cranky about using a youtube video as a source, but I will accept it as a faithful transcript of the Radio Disney interview. Please, people, it saves so much time and trouble if you identify a source first, and then add the information. Doing it backwards causes a lot of trouble.Kww (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The youtube audio is still a copyright violation and linking to it is contributory infringement. I didn't see any permission from Disney Radio on YouTube that stated YouTube had permission to host it. This puts us in a quandary. The information is factually correct but we can't use the reference that proves it. The actual reference is the Disney Radio broadcast. The citation does not need a url but must have a way to verify. A real transcript on a trusted source would be best. I suppose since there is no other source we could assert a claim for fair use exemption until something better comes along. Any suggestions? --NrDg 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to live with the direct reference being to the broadcast. The Youtube stuff can be pointed to as a verification in the event of a challenge, if it's challenged before a reliable trancript or other source appears.Kww (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy about this but changed cite to "Vanessa Hudgens (2008-04-11), Interview, Radio Disney" in article until we can get a better reference. We can probably use that in the Identified article as well. --NrDg 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all of our other choices were worse. A lot of people think that I enjoy whacking editors for unsourced stuff, but I really don't. It gets especially unpleasant when all that's being enforced is a technicality, and I know that they are putting accurate information in. Looks to me like Disney releases these interviews as podcasts. Hopefully, that will be available in a few days.

I forget who said it, but I live by these words: The test of decision making is the ability to make a bad decision. It's easy to make a good decision ... if one of your choices actually has merit, any idiot can choose it. It's when every one of your choices is wrong that it takes any skill or intelligence. Kww (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo Scandal

I added to thatsection "...which was the cause for rumors that she'd be dropped from the cast of High School Musical 3: Senior Year." The thing is, it was reverted, but then someone else must have added it again, and there edit WASN'T reverted. Can I ask... why? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out; I've reverted it. The source cited does not mention anything about such rumours, so it did not belong there. Generally, rumours shouldn't be added to Wikipedia articles unless they're very well and reliably sourced. Even then, they're not usually encyclopaedic. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I was just wondering because if when I said it it was reverted I didn't understand what difference it would make if someone else said it. (Note: I'm not new to wikipedia anymore but still getting the hang of things) ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to clear this matter up. We all know that she took those photos and sent them to zac Efron or whatever. She knows she made a mistake and nearly lost her job and tonnes of stuff because of it. She's already dealt with enough and she has learn't her lesson. so we should just leave it at that rather than try to stick our nosses into celebrities buisness. They do have a life as well you know, they are still humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman93 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Come back to me

The song come back to me played backwards has lyrics related to sex...you may want to put that in the song thingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npurplegirl (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• What's the source for the alleged lyrics, so we can evaluate its reliability and whether to include their analysis in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Youtube has the video of it.Look up : Come back to me backwards.You should find something. Npurplegirl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that answers the reliability question ....
Kww (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a stretch, from listening to the video. Not reliable, and really pointless. bibliomaniac15 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, I thought this sillyness died out in the 80s. You can basically hear "something" in probably every recording, even say the speech of a politician. See Backmasking for info on how much nonsense it is Nil Einne (talk)

more photos

I'm pretty sure I remember there being more than three photos that were leaked, anyone care to verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.116.134 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that did happen, but very few people heard about the pictures before they were cleared from the net. Very few people could even recognize her then, because it was before the High School Musical phenomonon and whatnot, so she had plenty of time to clear the photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.40.52 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Hi, I am an Italian user, on the Italian version of the page, the information about the dating was deleted because it is "not encyclopedic". But the fans of Vanessa are reinserting it continuosly. Deleting it was an error? The dating is encyclopedic?--SuperSecret 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Italians got it right. There's no reason to discuss her boyfriends in an encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

vanessa anne hudgens is american indian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camiel101 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

\

Filmography

Should there really be a separate article for Vanessa's filmography? Most actors' articles on here are able to keep their filmography with their article, and she hasn't been in too many films (the only one not showing in this article is Thirteen anyway). Jedi Striker, 12 October 2008, 12:39 (UTC) She will be good for the paper of Isabelle, At the film City of bones from the best-selling serie The mortal instruments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clra3596 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Official Website

Do not add an official website unless you have a source. Vanessa-Hudgens.com is a fansite, but listed as her official website by hollywoodrecords.com. vanessahudgens.silverback.sparkart.net (redirect from vanessahudgens.com) seems to be official, but no third-party source has been found. Edgehead5150 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Better Picture

--Friends007 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The current picture is fine. there is no need for a different one. Edgehead5150 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Her Heritage

she is puerto rican not from spain.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joniuhnkjhj (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Source? The article hast two sources asserting very clearly that her ancestors are from Spain. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any sense that she was Puerto Rican...The SPANISH (from SPAIN) colonized the Philipinnes...Her mother would be, like many mixed Filipinos, of Continental Spanish descent (as well as some Chinese). Peurto Ricans had nothing to do with the Philipinnes. Also European Spanish are white, they are not hispanic, since 'hispanic' refers to people from a colony of 'spain', not Spain itself...Therefore she she should not be classified as Hispanic as she is on this website...Her mother was Eurasian...and her father was Native American and Irish...She is 0% Hispanic.

The SPANISH (from SPAIN) colonized the Philipinnes...Her mother would be, like many mixed Filipinos, of Continental Spanish descent

Hey might as well categories all the African-Americans and Native-Americans as English descendants they were colonized by them therefore should have their blood! Please the English and Americans colonized Philipeans too actually MORE than the Spanish and are still there today!!! These just asians with spanish names due to Christianity and their culture has a sprinkle of spanish culture that is it! She has NO PROOF where are pics the interviews??? that's why the Spanish created the caste system long time ago according to them she's not geniunely Spanish therefor can not be a Spanish descedant (look at it this way the "One drop Rule" one drop of spanish blood does not make u Spanish) Her mom looks like a "china" she clearly asian descendant. Vanessa Hudgens was taken out of the List of Spanish Americans due to lack of evidence the fact the Spain colonized the phillipeans for a short time is not evidense enough she's not an American of Spanish descendants.  — [Unsigned comment added by Anen87 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC).]

We don't ask for proof. People's own statements about their ancestry are accepted. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

how u kno shes not hispanic ur part of her family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.174.3 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

About The Awards

Recently Vanessa Was Nominated with Anna Faris, Eva Mendes, Lin Chiling and Rhona Mitra for the First Awards 2009 in the category of the most beautiful woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.8.165 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a major award, so it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. --Edgehead5150 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cosmo Girl cover

I'm mixed on whether we meet the commentary requirement to use the Cosmo Girl cover. There is at least discussion of the cover; without it, the image would be clearly unacceptable. However, all we talk about with the cover is that she was on the cover, and the magazine was released the same day as Identified. Is that enough critical commentary to meet the WP:Non-free content requirements? —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as critical commentary at all. If there was something particularly notable about it, then yes, but simply that it came out the same day as the album is not deep commentary. either way (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Range and Voice Type

Vanessa Hudgens is a lyric Mezzo Soprano, her vocal range spans from E3-C6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.33.90 (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Anne Hutchinson

Her surname is Hutchinson. NOT Hudgens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.166.36 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

her name is vanessa hudgens where did you get hutchinson she admits in a million interviews it is hudgens she even says that in the song come back to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

singles

Amazed.was also a single unless it was only a radio disney hit but it was a popular tune so it should be mentoned as a single.--209.86.226.18 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009

If it wasn't pressed as a CD single or explicitly marketed as a single online, it does not meet the single definition. Being played on Radio Disney is appropro for nothing; they play anything a HSM star sings pretty much. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Facts

She is 5 foot 4 and is currently dating costar zac efron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethyoung (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) On Ellen Show, Vanessa said she doesn't have twitter. But in the August she said in a video on youtube that she made a twitter account to connect to the rest of her fans. The twitter account is called VHudgens1418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.131.154 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

According to what sources? —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead picture and other pictures

How did this article end up with File:Vanessa in Melbourne.jpg as the lead and only picture, excluding others like File:Vanessa Hudgens 9.jpg, File:Vanessa_Hudgens_11.jpg or File:Vanessa_Anne_Hudgens,_HSM2.jpg which have been in the article for a long time? Gimmetrow 06:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More nude photos surfacing

Rumors are going around that Vanessa Hudgens shot more nude photos again. I don't know if they were from now or the 2008 scandal, but if someone else knows more about this, feel free to cite a newssource.--mysterious singing springs needs to be shut down 23:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomballguy (talk • contribs)

Here's a source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/08/more-nude-pix-of-vanessa-hudgens-hit-the-web-someone-take-away-her-camera.html Clashwho (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times blog cites popeater.com, and says "alleged" and "unconfirmed reports" when referring to the story. That's not a reliable source, especially for a BLP. APK that's not my name 02:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to hear about the scandal, came here, as I usually do, found nothing. I was quite happy. I'm honestly glad you guys are working since there haven't been many sites besides the tabloids and blogs and such. This may be one, but I'm not sure, but I thought I'd drop it by here to see what you all, who actually work on this article, thought about it. Sometimes on certain pages I work on we use E!, sometimes we don't. So I just thought I'd leave you all with this. Happy editing and keep up the good work. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heres a link to the new photos for those who have doubts http://hiphopislyfe.blogspot.com/2009/08/vanessa-hudgens-nude-leaks.html Terrence12690 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's doubts that they exist, but we just can't add things. We need a reliable source. There needs to be coverage from actual media. --HELLØ ŦHERE 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see the new picture with your eyes. Whether or not it will impact her career in a manner significant enough to be relevant to a biographical wikipedia article about her is a different story though. It is also perfectly acceptable to have a link to a credible website that contains the old images. The old pictures obviously had a notable impact on her career and they are in the public domain. I wouldn't display the photos, new or old, in the article though at this point; she is certainly more notable as an actress rather than an actress notable for her nude photos. DrSocc (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] [2] they've been confirmed as her according to this site if anyone wants to go and add this information to the Article. AfroGold - Afkatk 10:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the article that the nude images constitute child pornography because she was at least 17 at the time they were taken?--Kencaesi (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does a reliable source call them child pornography? Sancho 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Brady Corbet who??

Who is this Brady Corbet and why does he warrant a spot in Vanessa Hugden's Filmography section (Thirteen & Thunderbirds movies)?

Was he an part of her film career...or is he just trying to get more publicity from her coat tails.

From the look of his page, I'm gravitating towards the latter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.158.135 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

edit semiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} 2006–2007: Artistic development 3rd sentence Grammar Correction.

Old Sentence: "Hudgens established a music career under Hollywood Records, citing that Celine Dion and Alicia Keys are her musical influences, were the reason why she pursued a music career."

Suggested Sentence: "Hudgens cemented her musical aspirations by signing with Hollywood Records, she cites Celine Dion and Alicia Keys as major musical influences."

What source do you have that details her "aspirations", and that they have been "cemented"?—Kww(talk) 13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Done I made some of those changes to fix up the grammar because it was seriously out of whack. I didn't use the word "cemented" or "aspirations," though, as I believe it implies other information. Also, for future reference, putting the template in the title is ill-advised as it messes up the headers. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Filmography needs updated

Band Slam is not included.

Source: www.imdb.com/title/tt0976222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.14.141 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you are looking, because it's in the Filmography table and has been for a long time.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

might as well add Robot Chicken to that list, she was a part of the Season 4 Finale episode--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More objetive

This article exaggerates the succes about the movies and the peaks positions of her songs is no notable beacuse english wikipedia is for Australia, UK and another english countries and the information is featured in the respective articles. Also this is about Vanessa Hudgens not about the production, filmation or the rest of cast of her movies. Juanacho September 29, 2009 10:05

HSM 4 THE FINALE

well there is going to be a hsm the finale its the fourth installment and why isn't it in any of the filmograhy it is supposed to be 2009 on december the 4th so can somebody add that to the filmography since i dont know how to??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have the original characters from HSM1-3 in it. Thus Gabriella isn't in it, thus Vanessa Hudgens isn't in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.172.130 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PERSONEL LIFE

i have a question isn't personal life sort of a secret then hw is it personal if everybody knows it?? plese answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

reliable source?????????????????????????????????????????????????

isn't youtube enough of reliable source sice you actually HEAR the person saying whatever while typing i can lie about anything and know one can tell exactly what i am lying about for example i knew vanessa hudgens when i was six that is a complete lie and if i hadn't told you that would you beleive it ?? NO I DONT THINK SO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

nude photos??

i dont think you should add nude photos since anyone could see this at all ages especially then people think she wont be such a good influence when those pics were private and also this happened 3 years ago!! why remember a tragic moment when you can forgive and forget? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor out the skeletons in celebrities' closets, so to speak. It received mainstream attention and is notable.

That being said, I wouldn't exactly worry on it making her to be a poor influence. The photos were taken in private, and were exposed by someone else. Even then, she took full responsibility and apologized. Maybe it takes away from her 'squeaky clean' image that Disney sets up, but other celebrities her age (or close to it, anyway) have done a lot worse. Just look at Lindsay Lohan.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't display her nudes, but we do need to include her lapses (two thus far) in the Lede. Once can perhaps sidestep notability. Twice means there is not only smoke, but a campfire burning somewheres. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. The lede is meant to establish the notability of the subject and their roles, not to go into details about scandals that have long since passed. The mention later on in the article is acceptable, but placing it right in the lede is just going too far. There hasn't been anything since 2008 so I think we can consider the subject closed. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

Vanessa Anne Hudgens, HSM2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.205.19 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the picture? —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I would love a new picture please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Vanessa Hudgens' ethnicity should be listed as half Filipino, half Caucasian. Or at least, it should be stated that her mother is from "Manila, Philippines" rather than just "Manila." It is also misleading to state that her mother is of Chinese and Spanish descent without also stating that she is in fact Filipino. Note that many Filipinos are of Spanish and Chinese descent, but that this does not make them a different ethnicity - most Filipinos are a mix of Spanish, Chinese and Indo-Malay. Please see below for citation.

From an interview with Vanessa Hudgens with Teen Hollywood:

TeenHollywood: Vanessa, you look exotic and gorgeous. What is your ethnic background?

Vanessa: Gosh, I'm everything. Pretty much I'm Filipino and Caucasian but within that, I'm Spanish, Chinese, American Indian, Irish.

<http://www.teenhollywood.com/2006/05/17/zac-efron-vanessa-anne-hudgens-high-school-musical> 69.231.132.72 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

David Waddington spelling error

{{editsemiprotected}} In the body of the text there is a quote by David Waddington. Later on in the References section the name is spelled incorrectly - it should be spelled as in the body of text: David Waddington. If that could be changed that would be great.

Many thanks,

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcwaddington (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking it at right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Change made to last name of author in ref tag. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi my name is Ryan,I am from Trinidad I Just want to find out if she is a true christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.184.67 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article. I don't know if that's because her religion is too tangential to her career to be mentioned or because there are no reliable sources discussing it. My hunch is the latter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Stella Hudgens link redirects back to Vanessa Hudgens page.

I am not able to edit this page but can anyone look into the issue & possibly remove the misleading hyperlink ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldmps (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stella is not notable in her own right, so her article was redirected to her sister's. That'a not uncommon for almost-notable relatives of notable people. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It still seems weird though, having a redirect to someone else's page even if it is her sister. An outsider may only be familiar with Stella Hudgens and not know who Vanessa is, and the redirect might make people think Stella and Vanessa are the same person if they're not familiar with them. At least create a family section and link it to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.172.130 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.220.45.247, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hey can you please update the rewards...she won the female star of tomorrow award at ShoWest in Las Vegas last month :) thanks!

67.220.45.247 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a specific source.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.151.246.164, 23 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Vanessa Hudgens did not play Cindy Lou Who in How the Grinch Stole Christmas. It says that she broke out with this film at the top of this page. Her IMDB page does not have her credited in this. It was Taylor Momsen. Please remove this.

173.151.246.164 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done I checked the source that discusses her early stage career, and it makes no mention of a stage performance of Grinch. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.125.181.64, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

please i got more info i promsee 69.125.181.64 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide details of exactly what you want to change. There's no way this article is going to be unprotected anytime soon.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New picture

I think the may 2010 pic should be the main--216.232.216.224 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will make change as we should use the latest image if possible. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to separate Van's career to Music and Acting in 3 days. Have your say.

I'm going to separate Van's career to Music and Acting if no one has comments in 3 days. For better focus on each of her career. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Chronological is the only way to go that doesn't give weighting problems. Separating articles this way makes people generate separate "controversy" sections, because there isn't anyway to integrate them into the main flow anymore.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the nekkid pictures stuff

A mention of this needs to be in the Lede, as per WP:LEDE:

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies..." (emboldened for emphasis)

Since a large group of readers might not otherwise even know who this person is apart from the nude pics floating the internet not once but twice, it is notable content. to that end, we have the matter discussed in the body of the article. As the Lede is an overview and summary of the article, we need to note it. Pretending it doesn't exist in the Lede is fannishly inappropriate. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. No one gets a free pass because they are stupid or young. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have reverted though is because it hasn't been a sustained act at all, or something that cost her anything visibly career-wise in any way. In some cases, certainly there is a need to mention a subject's foibles if it is important enough. But the text as structured is basically saying '...known for her role in the HSM film series, and a series of nude photos released without her permission.'

That's the important thing; there wasn't any crime committed and there was no long-term damage to her career wrought because of it. It was only part of the gossip cycle for a few weeks and forgotten. About 90% of readers would know her from the HSM series. At this point only a few know her for the incidents, which again were likely not her fault. This isn't a 'notable controversy'; at best it's a slight footnote of curiosity that unlike many others was quickly nipped and forgotten.

And to point out; I am not a fan of her, I just watch this article like many others of its ilk because of BLP violations and the usual vandalism. So my eye is also on if this is added, you're putting a red target on the lede to be vandalized, so if this is added, it has to be done with caution. Nate • (chatter) 08:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And then there's Vanessa L. Williams. The introduction of her article just refers to "a scandal"; you have to read deeper into the article to find out just what the scandal was (nude pics that went on to be published in Penthouse). Based on that, and given that there were no major repercussions from Hudgens' pictures, I think it is reasonable to omit the pictures from the introduction entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Last point first: C.Fred - no one in this conversation is suggesting we post her nude pictures; I think we would run afoul of the BLP caveat to not depict her in a disparaging or negative light, which the pictures might do.

However, that said, the fact that nude pictures seem to keep "escaping" from this woman's custody with alarming frequency has been remarked upon and noted by reliable, neutral sources. I do not care if she released the images to create roles for herself outside of the Disney mold, and do not care. As an editor, none of us should. She is known for three things - four is you count dating Zac Efron: the HSM movies, the necked pictures and the music.

I challenge the idea that 90% of the readers only know Hudgens from the movies; look at the bump the article took once the original scandal broke, and then again, once the second one broke. Granted, she is known for her films, and to a far lesser extent, her musical releases. But I think that to suggest that only 10% of aware of her because of the nude pics would need citation, not a guess-timation. I first heard about Hudgens after the nude images discussion began, not before. A great many people, when they think of Hudgens, they think of the nude pictures; she commented on this sustained impression herself in the article: "Whenever anybody asks me, would I do nudity in a film, if I say that it's something I'm not comfortable with, they're like, 'Bullshit, you've already done it." Therefore, the images present a sustained impression of the subject, and it would be irresponsible to pretend they aren't. We are an encyclopedia, not a PR agency. We cite negative material in the Lede of articles like Paris Hilton, Severina Vučković, and a host of others. This article shouldn't be exempt. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously the way you are spelling 'naked'. Let's look at your examples though; Severina, I am just reading it and I'm seeing she got into that mess all by her lonesome by creating this false image and letting it build up until she got a hard fall. And Paris Hilton, well I wouldn't say it was important, but yes, in that case it should be mentioned because she felt she was entitled and the judge made her serve time.

But here, this was just a teenager futzing with her cameraphone, forgetting how to use the delete function, and someone hacking into her computer and grabbing the images and getting them out there. Beyond having a lousy password or an open wifi hotspot, this was not her fault. She didn't ask for this. Her team quickly did their best to kibosh the impact. But it got out there, a week of angry debate on talk shows was had, Disney scolded her and that was it. Lesson learned. It was dealt with and we have all moved on.

The point is, if you get into trouble from your own stupidity because it hurt (or nearly hurt) somebody, then it should get mentioned. Here, completely accidental. Also, she was underage in the pictures to boot, so any damage was minimal out of pure fear of prosecution by her legal team and the authorities for even showing them. Thus, why it should not be mentioned in the lede. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are speculating as to the differences between Vučković and Hudgens, but I am not going to sidetrack this discussion by enumerating them. The fct of the matter is, no matter how much Disney would dearly love this all to go away, Disney didn't take these pictures. Hudgens did. Hudgens was responsible for their existence, and there is no one to blame if they got away from her; teenager or no, I am not sensing the utter stupidity of a teenager but rather a series of calculated moves by an actress trying to keep herself in the public eye, allowing her to progress into mainstream roles. Since I can no more prove my supposition than you can yours (and coupled without he fact that neither of us is qualified to render a [[]WP:RS|reliable], neutral opinion on the matter), we are limited to simply stating the facts. As we do so in the body of the article, we are charged with noting it in the Lede. It is a significant part of the subject's notability.

And lastly, it bears repeating that a huge majority of people (outside of children, tweens and teens) didn't even knew who Hudgens was before this scandal started. Due to the nature of the internet, she's known to anyone with a computer. And I have to say, after the second set emerged, no one is believing she's just some innocent kid too stupid to delete her images. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Important Dates that are wrong

The film Journey 2 is in September of 2011 in theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanessaAnne (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life and Public Image

It says that "The two were not paired together during the audition process and did not meet until the first early rehearsals before filming started." In the article cited for this statement, it clearly states that Efron and Hudgens were paired together almost every time during the audition process for High School Musical. There is also proof of this in various Disney interviews and footage of Efron and Hudgens paired together during the audition process. Someone change this, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.75.41 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We just need a citation to that effect, anon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Naked Photos, 2011

Hudgens' fame has also been marked by scandal caused by the release of private, self-taken nude photographs of herself on the Internet without her permission, first in 2007, and then in again in 2009.

I think we now say "first in 2007, and then in again in 2009, and again in 2011." 12.162.122.5 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you got reliable sources documenting that there's a new scandal? The prior scandals got coverage in the media; unless there's coverage of this alleged new one, it may not be mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These got coverage, but not in anything better than celebs.com and Drunken Stepfather.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispensing for a moment the question of these sites' reliability, are we sure that these are new images, or just a rehash of older ones? Hudgens has worse judgment than a sack of hammers, but three times seems especially stupid, even for her. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It showed up on TMZ, and they seem to be a third leak from the same original batch. It may be reasonable to add that phrasing to the article: one batch taken, three leaks.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't, because WP:BLP prevents us from adding material without solid references. When we have solid citations noting that not only are the new pictures part of the previous batch, but are indeed her, then we can note that these keep getting leaked. We are not in a hurry here, so let's await better sources. Hudgens and her penchant for cam-phone porn isn't going anywhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the way the sentence is phrased in that section of the article...it only indicates that the scandal was the release of the photos to begin with. Why do they need to be from a separate batch of photos entirely to be considered a new story? That's a completely arbitrary standard to set. Each release is a different story in itself: for what it reveals about her (no pun intended), what it does to her career/image, and how much of an issue it is in her public life. And like them or not, TMZ's reliability isn't really to question here, and I sincerely doubt they wholly made up a quote from Hudgen's attorney that indicates they are, in fact, of her. - President David Palmer

Until we have a reliable source that states explicitly the details of the images, we shouldn't mention it; in BLPs we err on the side of the subject; it's their career that can be damaged by us printing speculation - and that is exactly what it will be seen as without explicit secondary sourcing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly about her attorney intervening and stating that they are of her is not sufficient, exactly? The memo was released to multiple media outlets, including US Magazine and TMZ, both of whom published it. Pretty much the cornerstore of pop-junk media. Sorry for the inability to embed the URLs, but here: http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/16/vanessa-hudgens-nude-photos-internet-lawsuit-sues-leaked-high-school-musical/

and here: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/vanessa-hudgens-upset-and-angered-by-nude-pics-leak-2011163

You don't publicly come forward, admit you are in the photos, and demand justice for the crime against you because they're NOT of you...this is pretty much the exact standard of proof that allowed the inclusion of the 2007 or 2009 photos being mentioned in this article. If you're erring on the side of caution, you might as well remove all mentions of any of these photos, because they have essentially the same proof. - President David Palmer

I'd asked over at RSN before I had the "brilliant" idea of checking the archives. The question about TMZ's reliability has - not surprisingly - come up numerous times, The concensus of most of these discussions is that it minimally qualifies as reliable, and if citations from such are used, they should be attributed as such (ie. 'according to TMZ, etcetera. etc.'). So, while it looks like Kww cited from US Weekly (another rag which barely passes the test and should be given attribution as well), we can use the TMZ source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage has been added in proportion to importance: one sentence, sourced to US Weekly.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but nowhere in that source did it affirm that these images are from an earlier packet of released nude images. Is the a secondary source explicit about the source of the images as being part of a previous "batch"? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording's important here: "... these old photos, which were taken years ago, continue to resurface ..." makes it clear that she isn't stupid enough to have taken more pictures. Examination of the pictures may be WP:OR, but it's reasonably obvious that she isn't lying about that part: she's pretty much the same age in this set that she was in the first. "Same batch" may be too strong, but they aren't new pictures. I'm open to suggestions.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that wording is important, too. How about (in the Image and personal life section), instead of 'According to Us Weekly, further pictures were released on the internet March 15, 2011', we write 'According to Us Weekly, further pictures from 2009 were released on the internet March 15, 2011'? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've tried to avoid commenting on this, but I'll just add this: I agree with KWW about the wording, but I think that "... these old photos, which were taken years ago, continue to resurface ..." isn't quite right, as that implies that it's the same pictures being recycled, whereas they are in fact previously unseen pictures taken at the same time as the other already released images. a_man_alone (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a direct quote from Hudgens's rep. She is trying to make the claim that there is only one batch, but, unfortunately, she didn't precisely and unambiguously make that claim.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim seems to be that the 2009 release was also a release from the same pictures as the 2007 release, at least that's how I read "It is particularly disturbing that whoever got hold of these private photos seems to be intent on illegally leaking them out over a long period of time". Again, the pictures themselves appear to bear that out. No reason to believe they were all taken the same night or anything, but she doesn't appear to be aging between releases of the picture. At the very least, the article isn't explicit about whether the photos were all taken at nearly the same time or not.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't what I took from that at all. I was under the impression that these - if they are indeed from a prior batch of phone images - were taken from the '09 "set". We aren't really in a position to evaluate if she has aged or not. To me, she still looks like a kid; impressions are subjective. I don;t think we should try to infer meaning from vague statements. Either we need something explicit, or we should wait for someone reliable to say something explicit that we can cite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to use TMZ, but "Sources connected to Vanessa tell TMZ the photos were taken from the same batch that were released several years ago featuring the actress ... fully nude " supports my interpretation.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the first part of your linked quote: "Sources connected to Vanessa tell TMZ..." - that doesn't sound anything like responsible reporting to me; you see that same sort of children's Round Robin in the Enquirer and other rags. This isn't a normal article; it is a BLP, and there is always the possibility that better sources can be found with far more explicit comments coming from Hudgens or her lawyers (or even the cops). Until then, I think we need to wait; we do not have explicit commentary here, and I'm not willing to bank on TMZ's dubious journalistic integrity when we could have something else that's better. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper - we are not and should never be looking for a scoop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that scooping isn't the goal. My concern actually is BLP: our current article makes it appear likely that there are multiple sets of photos floating around, when the more favorable interpretation is that there is only one set.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is stating that all of the nude pictures are from a single batch; the supposition is that the most recent images are part of the '09 release. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources about 2009 say: "lawyers for Hudgens later requested that they be removed because she was underage when they were taken" which would date those photos before Dec. 1996. "She hasn't done anything like that since the first ones came out. These new ones are actually old." There's a clear statement that the 2009 leak was of pre 2007 pictures. Exactly the same "batch" as the 2007 pictures? Who knows? How are "batches" delimited? Still, the wording should indicate that the claim is that all photography was done before the first leak, and should do so concisely. Besides scooping, I'm suspicious that these leaks are timed to occur shortly before she has albums released or films open. I neither want to unduly besmirch Hudgens or work as her free publicity agent.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As you've said, Kww. For that reason, we should go with anything that is anything less than explicit. We do not suss out the truth; we cite people who do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.111.232.228, 15 April 2011

The mother of Vanessa is not a native from MAnila. Her mother originally is from Ozamiz City, Philippines. Even the close kins like 1st degree cousins of her mother can attest to that. Please edit the information 203.111.232.228 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The text currently in the article is supported by a quotation from Hudgens in an interview: "My mother is so proud. She grew up in Manila."[3] To change or add to the text, a similar source—an interview or story about Hudgens published in a reliable source—must be cited. First-hand accounts like the attestation of cousins are not sufficient. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2012

File:Vanessa Hudgens 10, 2012.jpg

MichelleTaylorr (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, current pic seems fine to me, especially since its from the same place and she's facing the camera--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spring Breakers

You need to include that she is to star in the new film "Spring Breakers" in 2013. :) Niyavacivaci (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests need to include reliable sources, most helpfully with a link or as a bare url. As primary filming has not started yet according to reliable sources, while she may have been cast, changes to casting, delays in filming, and cancelations of projects occur frequently throughout the industry. See WP:No future films and WP:CRYSTAL. Dru of Id (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012

Personal Life

Before actress Vanessa Hudgens became famous through her recurring role in the High School Musical movie series, she worked with business manager Johnny Vieira. During their time together, Vieira claimed that he and Hudgens agreed to work together to launch her career and also agreed to share in the profits of her success equally. However, once Hudgens became a teen star, Vieira claims that she stopped working with him and failed to pay him his portion of the prof- its. Consequently, Vieira filed a lawsuit against Hudgens, asking for $5 million in puni- tive damages. In his lawsuit, Vieira noted a signed photograph on which Hudgens wrote “Johnny, thank you for everything, without you, I would be no where, we will make it BIG—Vanessa Hudgens.” The case was set to go to trial; however, two weeks before trial, Hudgens and Vieira reached a settlement outside court.

(Business Law II. McGraw-Hill Create p. 75). <vbk:9781121433878#page(75)>

Systematic1 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This subject is already handled in the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Josh Hutcherson photo

While I think it is okay/good/needed to have something written about her relationship with Josh Hutcherson, isn't it kinda "wrong" to have a photo of them two together when they only dated for maybe weeks instead of a photo with Zac Efron whom she dated for almost 5 years? Maybe someone could change something there? --78.43.226.137 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 May 2012

Hudgens is of mixed cultural background, as her father is of Irish and Native American descent, and her mother, a native of Manila, Philippines, is of Chinese-Filipino-Spanish descent.

Change the word "cultural" to "racial" or "ethnic." This sentence seems to be discussing the actresses race rather than her cultural background. (Another acceptable change would be to alter the content of the sentence to focus on the cultures she was raised in.)

125.71.216.80 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done OK. It'll probably be reverted but we'll give it a go per WP:BRD Egg Centric 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT

The article reads "She was raised as a Roman Catholic". The source reads "I’m a jewellery addict. I love it and could load it on all day. I’m Catholic, so that’s why I have two crosses on". WP:BLPCAT reads "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". The last part is the critical part, I really don't see how her beliefs are relevant to her public life or notability, at least not at present. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 August 2012

I would suggest removing the quote from the North Wales Pioneer. They are a tiny newspaper with a circulation of 25000 and hardly an appropriate source. 86.160.174.12 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done but not for the reason given. The quote was sourced to a dead link and is therefore a WP:BLP violation. I have no prejudice against re-adding this quote if a reliable attribution can be re-added. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the quote and the source. A dead link does not automatically make an allegation unsourced or a BLP violation; it merely makes it harder to access. See WP:DEADLINK. Besides that, there was a perfectly good copy of the news article on the Internet Archive (which I added to the reference).

Of course none of this exchange has any real bearing on the reason the IP suggested removing the quote—and I'm afraid I have no real feeling one way or another as to whether there's a legitimate issue with the source in that regards. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Vanessa Hudgens

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vanessa Hudgens's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From Alice in Wonderland (2010 film): "Alice in Wonderland (2010) – Box Office Mojo". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Archived from the original on November 15, 2010. Retrieved July 8, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 Hollywood film): "Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2009-08-08.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Amazing picture for Vanessa Hudgens in 2012

There's a amazing picture of Vanessa Hudgens in January 2012:

• 
  1
• 
  2

This pictures is better than the current picture. These high-quality images. and this pictures shows the full face Vanessa Hudgens. I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. Thanks. --94.99.9.124 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

68.34.228.160 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Please change age from "age 23" to "age 24" because her birthday was two days ago and she is now 24 My source is her Wikipedia page stating that her birthday was on December 14 1988 making her 24 now

The infobox already says she's 24. There's a template in situ, which automatically updates. NiciVampireHeart 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It already says she is 24. You might have been looking at a cached version of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Aliases

Four aliases were recently added to the article: Nessa, V, Vaness, and Vanney. What professional work has she performed under these four names that justify listing them as aliases? Per the infobox instructions, the alias field is not to be used for nicknames; these sure look like nicknames, especially since I don't see them mentioned anywhere else in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

They should be removed as no professional credits using those names and no references that she uses those names. Looks like a fan invention. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)