Talk:Vanessa Hudgens

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)

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

You guys really need to study up on your hacking :P Her cellphone was cracked into and the pictures stolen out of it. It happens to actors/actresses all the time. 69.205.47.74 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

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 integral 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)

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)

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)

Background information:

Name:Bayli Baker. Birth:September,16th,1992. Sister:Kelli Herbert. Brother:Zach Baker. Mom:Bonnie Story. Film:High School Musical, 1,2 and 3, and The American Mall. Dance info:I am A Principal Dancer. Best friend:Mollee Gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baylibakerfans (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)