Talk:Zac Efron/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Me and Orson Welles

The Hollywood Reporter has said that Zac has been confirmed to star in Me and Orson Welles; an upcoming film.

Zac was spotted reading the Me and Orson Welles screenplay back in August.

The film is set in 1937 and the story centers on high school student Richard Samuels (Efron).

Me and Orson Welles will shoot mid-February and March in New York, London and the Isle of Man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Becky3103 (talk • contribs) January 19, 2008

Here's the link, for anyone interested. The article, Me and Orson Welles (film), was deleted. But once it goes into production (within the next couple of months, it looks like), the article about it can be recreated, with references from reliable sources like this -Ebyabe (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

This is odd...
National Ledger article dated August 1, 2007 says "High School Musical stars, Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens called it quits back in June. But less than two months later, handsome young Zac has already found a new, unlikely romance with Hairspray costar Nikki Blonsky..."

However, this Showbuzz article dated August 30, 2007 says "Hudgens confirms she's dating her "High School Musical 2" co-star, Zac Efron."
--Geniac (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zac Efron had his appendix removed at a hospital in L.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.13.134 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life section currently reads "Zac is dating Vanessa Hudgens for publicity only" 75.35.4.56 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it says he's single. I have half a mind to delete that little 'fact' MusicBoi94 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Zac is still dating Vanessa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.84.95 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

http://justjared.buzznet.com/tags/vanessa-hudgens/ http://justjared.buzznet.com/tags/zac-efron/ please just take a look at these

here are the links showing pictures of them together, holding hands, and kissing. Scroll down from the top and it has them at the MTV movie awards, JAZZ game and other places. That should be plenty of proof to change it to "currently" in a relationship with vanessa hudgens. You can go to the main site just so you can see that its not a phony one or anything. If thats not enough proof, she was seeing giving him a kiss as soon as he won best breakthrough performance at the MTV movie awards the other night, thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07lwcayce (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

be sure to go down so you can see them holding hands and kissing in multiple environments, proving it... thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07lwcayce (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures are just pictures and could mean anything. However, [1] does say, "Vanessa Hudgens and boyfriend Zac Efron..." --Geniac (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

thats true, but when their always holding hands and leaning on him at the bball game and kissing, it makes sense ya know, but thanks for checkin! i just want it changed from was to is currently dating her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07lwcayce (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says "Efron was dating his High School Musical series co-star Vanessa Anne Hudgens in August 2007." as that is all the attached reference used to support that factoid says. There is nothing in that statement that implies they stopped or continued dating as the reference is a snapshot in time and the info was stated that way. If you have a reference that says as of June 2008, Efron was dating ... then that statement can be supported as well. I would prefer to see something other than a picture and an interpretation though. A direct statement from either of them would be best. --NrDg 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDbPro

Is this any more of a reliable source than regular IMDb? If so, why? Can subscribers edit information? If so, than it's no more good than regular IMDb. I'm just wondering, as it's being used as a reference. -Ebyabe (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that I have to pay $12.50 a month to use IMDbPro and that I have access to pages that regular IMDb people can't. The cost also allows a subscriber to create his or her own resume that, apparently, the great powers of Hollywood can look upon and chose from whom they wish to use for their various projects. I guess that even our Zac has to pay his $12.50 a month to keep his resume alive, as impressive as it is. I don't know, though, who can change what, when. Are you saying above that IMDb is not a good source for information? The movie pages seem to offer accurate information as to when filming begins, when the film will be offered to the public, who is working on the film right down to the carpenters even, and so forth. Why is IMDb not considered a good source? Why is it less a credible source than is wikipedia itself, since wikipedia can be changed by anybody at any time, as this page so entertainingly proves, practically on a daily basis. I'm trying to be a good page citizen here. And, of course, one user should not assume that his opinions automatically reflect the opinions of all of the other citizens just because...well, you know. I don't know how to sign my name except by using the example above, so here goes. Buxtehude2002 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just returned from the IMDbPro site and I have some answers for you. First of all, only those who have had their email addresses verified can submit changes into the system. Those changes are then independently verified as to placement into the data base because everything has to be linked to everything else correctly, and if it can't be, it won't be. Also, nearly all of the information on the data base can be licensed if a fee is paid, and used commercially anywhere where a weblink or a reference might demonstrate. Also, as I said above, the resumes which young (or not so young) actors or craftsmen of all types (like the carpenters mentioned above) can post (for $2.50 a month extra, which I hope that our Zac can afford since he is hardly working these days) are, indeed, perused often by the movers and shakers of Hollywood and New York. For these several reasons, I should think that IMDbPro should serve as a credible source of data for this page. Comments? Buxtehude2002 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a citation to indicate that IMDB Pro verifies all changes with a reliable source? My understanding was that this information is not independently verified. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are two sources: http://pro.imdb.com/help/?adding/resume/ and http://pro.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?resumenewtitle Please note this type of statement: "Please note that titles [or changes] submitted to the IMDb are not automatically added to the database but must be processed/checked by our staff."

Yes, but this does not guarantee that the information is verified, only that title information may be rejected if not verifiable. They don't claim that they verify credits. In fact, I've seen false information submitted to IMDB Pro, see for example this. --Yamla (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. Until I can dig a little deeper I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The example you provided is fake and unverified? How is this known to be? Rather damning if true, I would agree. But, how could they be willing to license their information and find people who would pay for the same if their information could not be trusted? Nobody would pay for a license if they didn't have a decent reputation. Are you saying that people are lying right and left on their resumes? Are you saying that even our Zac has possibly lied on his, or his people have? The shock! How can anybody know if what anybody says about Zac is true, anywhere? More to the point, am I just wasting my $12.95 a month to be a Pro member? I'm feeling a little lightheaded right now, so I'm going to bed. Excuse me for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buxtehude2002 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do a search on Amer Amer, you will find that there are absolutely no independent sources for his claims. He paid the fee to get the information added to imdb so he could use that as a reference on his resume, despite the fact that it is clear to most that this is not an independent source of information. I'm not claiming that Zac lies. In fact, I expect the vast majority of the information on imdb pro is accurate. However, unfortunately at least some of the information is false and in any case, imdb does not independently verify all the information so it is not sufficient under WP:RS. As to whether or not you are wasting your money, only you can answer that question.  :) --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone to bed yet. First of all, the refund page of IMDbPro is going to be visited rather soon. Second of all, do I need to throw out the stuff I've added or changed over the past couple of weeks, all of it based on what I read on this site, which I innocently believed was a viable source of data according to Wikipedia standards (which are so wonderfully personified within yourself)? I know that you're an admin and all that. I've been quite conservative as to what I've added. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buxtehude2002 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here is a help page from IMDb itself that states rather succinctly what you have been claiming Yamla, especially the last statement: http://www.imdb.com/help/search?domain=helpdesk_faq&index=1&file=infosource In short, they will not stand behind what their information declares. Case closed. Should I still remove what I put in originally? Buxtehude2002 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you put originally. Information needs to be cited with a reliable source and as we've discovered, imdb pro isn't. But perhaps you can find another source? --Yamla (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Grease 3

okay what is with the Grease 3?. There is not a source for it. I was also just wondering I thought that plans to even do Grease 3 were scrapped years ago so why would they change their minds. anyways if this really is true could someone please find a source to back it up cause right now it looks highly doubtful that this is true. Headstrong 345 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Grease 3 doesn't excist . The name has changed in High School Musical, and the story is different than Grease. Markmu06 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Note role

I heard 'Zac Efron will be Light' was a rumour. Would someone care to cite a reference as proof? 141.158.51.248 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Annisina

I removed it. The only mention of an English language Death Note movie I found was on IMDB. It shows as coming out in 2010, with no other details at all, even cast. So listing him as being Light is premature, at best, and definitely crystal ball-ish. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What Is Going On?

All of a sudden there are all of these wacko fan people changing everything is sight without sources, most of whom apparently never studied grammar or spelling in school. Did the semi-protection date pass us by and has it not been re-established? It really is needed on this site. Obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buxtehude2002 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested the re-protection of the page, and it has been granted, in the form of indefinite semi-protection. Much better. -Toon⁰⁵ 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Further vandalism

First paragraph currently reads "...is an American actor, singer, and total fag. God, I hate him. He needs to be impaled on a large wooden stake. Up the ass. But he'd enjoy that, because he's a goddamn fruitcake. Screw him. Screw his homo bastard buttocks." and it's protected so I can't remove it. 86.16.36.41 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and it hasn't for quite some time. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:86.16.36.41, the article has been semi-protected so that you must be an established signed-in user to edit, to avoid vandalism like the one you referring to. Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more info. --Dan Leveille (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooh a little bit of homophobia on Wikipedia?FiringRange (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) in conclusion i wanna kiss him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.99.236 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong info

hello please can staff change 2007-present to 2007 without the presnet becasuse it is 2008 now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaefron (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The section refers to his career during 2007 to the present day. The only reason there's no 2008 info is because there is none available yet, but there obviously will be eventually. On a side note, you don't have to be staff to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. Be bold (but not reckless) and edit articles yourself. Though, if I understood you correctly, there's no need to change the 2007-present. --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The section about him attending and graduating from PCPA is incorrect. He was part of their young performers program. I don't have a source because there isn't anything written about him from PCPA, but I know him and am a primary source. I don't have an established account and, therefore, cannot edit this page yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bend83 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't accept this information even if you had an established account. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wondered about that myself. The website said that he was a graduate during the years of 2000/2001, in the same breath as their statement that Robin Williams was a graduate as well, but that would have made Zac a 13-year-old kid when he accomplished this, which means that he was quite the wonder, even then, or that the website writer possesses a rather broad definition of what "graduating" really means. The source is located on PCPA's alumni page under the name of Zac Efron. The listing is what it is. Perhaps you could talk to PCPA itself and get them to correct their probable inaccurate information. Buxtehude2002 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you won't consider me a primary source either, but Zac did not graduate from PCPA. The PCPA site doesn't even claim that as was written above. (I don't know if they claim Robin Williams either, but the rumor is he was kicked out for smoking pot) It says Zac was a young performer, which he was in Peter Pan and a number of other performances. I'm pretty sure Gypsy was his first performance, and that was before the dates listed by PCPA but in their archive of shows from past seasons you can find the actual dates of performance. (Accurate record keeping isn't really in the PCPA budget). The point is Zac did not graduate from PCPA, it downgrades the merit of my friends who have graduated from the conservatory to include him in that list as he was never formally trained there. In 2001 when he was in eighth grade he played John in PCPA's production of Peter Pan. PCPA graduates receive a certificate of completion at graduation (it's similar to an associates degree), which Zac does not have. (Although I distinctly remember him being very excited to get a pair of heelies for his 13th birthday the year he supposedly graduated) By the way, how do you determine if someone is a valid source? As a valid source I know there are inaccurate things written about Zac all the time, does being in print make them more true than first hand experience? User: claireganz

You were correct claireganz. He didn't graduate and the website now reflects that. Originally, it claimed that Zac had graduated and I know this because I'm the one who put the link up. Now all is correct, I hope. The entry has been changed to reflect reality. In answer to your question, all I know is what the administrators have told me not to use...fan magazines or fan websites or even Imbd for the reasons discussed below. Seemingly, the closer you can get to the actual source of information the better. Although, I suppose that Zac himself could not improve the accuracy of the information herein by himself unless he first had it put in print (I wonder if he has ever looked at it). Wouldn't an autobiography be great? He's certainly lucid enough, without doubt. He had to be an A student in high school as he claimed. Personally, I admire him as much for the quality of his mind as I do for his talent and humility. An outstanding young man in just about every way, seemingly.Buxtehude2002 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole writeup at WP:RS, and the principle is in WP:V — every piece of information should be verifiable. Anecdotal information and verbal interviews with primary sources are nearly impossible to verify, so information from them shouldn't be included. If you ever have a question about a particular source, you can ask at WP:RSN.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

guest role

Somewhere, it should be put in that he is going to have a guest appearance on the TV show "secret life of the american teenager" I read that on the secret life article, and it could be false. but in case he is, it should be put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.192.171 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um...no. That's not how things work. If you're unsure. You need to find a source to back it up. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pets

I'm not sure that his pets are encyclopedic (this, and the dating, were removed on the Italian version)--SuperSecret 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

he has pets????? 71.108.165.9 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pet's aren't relevant to this article. --Dan Leveille^TALK 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

relationship status...

k it says that zac efron WAS dating vanessa hudgens as of september 3, 2008. im sure theyre still going out and since a long time ago too...can someone change that if possible (i might be wrong though) thanks Renigp (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are still going out, then was dating as of is the correct form. If you can find a reliable source for a later date, go ahead and change the reference and change the date.Kww (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But remember that "is dating" will only be the correct tense to use if the source is dated the same as the date when it is put into the wikipedia article. The next day starting at 12:01 AM the tense once again turns back to "was dating". This is the way that English works, folks. I didn't invent it but I sure know how it is supposed to work. It isn't anybody's fault if grammar isn't correctly taught these days in our High Schools. But the rules remain the same for everybody.Buxtehude2002 (talk)

right, sorry! my mistake :) 70.69.136.235 (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to locate Onion news video article?

I'm not sure where is the best place in the article to make reference to the Onion News Network video that features Zac in the 2nd half of the segment. Any thoughts on where to put this? Thanks, ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.11.239 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Onion's website is a good spot. It isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is really a shame, because it's hilarious.Kww (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"A certain deadness around the eyes". Oh yes, Indeed!Buxtehude2002 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Can someone please remove this?

The page ends with the section

"Efron has a high profile stocker on his hands. . . where Hilton could have his way with Efron."

Aside from the incorrect spelling and poor grammar, this appears to be pure unsourced speculation based on fantasy.

Captain Eskimo (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)