Talk:Greenlee Smythe

message: Do you believe it is important to note that Greenlee previously held the last names of "duPres" and "Lavery". Example being, at the beginning of the article when her name is listed, shouldn't it be Greenlee Smythe (formerly, duPres and Lavery) considering she did at one time use those marital names. People have to realize because she chose not to use Devane as a last name, doesn't change the past when she temporarily was Greenlee duPres or Greenlee Lavery both of which I've heard her referred to as over the years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.110 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her past names are in the infobox; people can surely see them there. Not really relevant to have her past names in the lead (introduction) when that can be easily seen in the infobox, and especially when they are not as notable as her maiden name. If she had taken Aidan's last name, it would be relevant to note her as Greenlee Devane (née Smythe) in the lead. But her former married names would not be needed, seeing as they are not her current names and are seen in the infobox, and would just crowd the intro of the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance??

message: --Sango Kirara 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grrenlee Smith duPres-Lavery 

message: I have a couple problems with the line that I edited out, "Two of the continuing themes of the character are her love for Ryan Lavery and her best friend/worst enemy relationship with Kendall Hart," which is why I did. First of all: what does this add? A person can simply read her story below and see the people that the character has had relationships with. And if the line is suppose to mean that they come up repeatedly, anyone can see that from reading her story. Secondly, my issue that concerns the Ryan Lavery part of the statement: it rubs me the wrong way to see "her love for Ryan Lavery" mentioned explicitly at the beginning of the article, as if that deserves some kind of special mention, when she loved Leo more than him. Why should her weaker love get special mention as if it's one of the things that defines her? That statement upsets me both as someone who watched her from the beginning of her story, and for other reasons which can be discussed further. But I wanted to clarify why I think the line has no place in the article. Thanks.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.193.108 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure of who originally added it, but I added it back twice now in reverting you because they are essential themes of the character. That is what it adds. The lead (intro) is supposed to summarize the important aspects of the subject. We mention her originally being a bad girl, being reformed into a heroine (though still bad at times)...and then that. Furthermore, not everyone is going to read the entire article, and these articles are supposed to be for more than just people familiar with the subjects. I also believe that Leo du Pres is her true love, but the show did rewrite her true love as Ryan Lavery; and that theme has been very prominent. It is not as though the lead notes him as Greenlee's true love, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't see it that way. I don't even mean it only as a Leo vs Ryan issue because that isn't the main issue, as really anyone who watched her through her entirety knows there is no question there. As for Ryan being her love in a post-Leo world, that's also true and again not the issue. But to define it as a recurring theme in the character when it has come up really only twice (since she herself admitted the first time wasn't love, especially in comparison to the real thing when she finally got it)? If we are defining recurring themes just by amount of times it comes up, she broke up and got back with Leo many more times than Ryan. Am I arguing her love for Leo is a "recurring theme"? No. Again, Leo is not my main issue. But I feel the line defines her as "her love for Ryan Lavery" if that makes sense, and that rubs me the wrong way knowing she is much more than a friend/enemy of Kendall Hart and a person who may or may not love Ryan Lavery (a point which I've seen debated whether she truly loves him at all), the latter of which has been the greatest disservice to who the character truly is and took away a lot of what made her such a special character in the first place - so to see her defined as that in the beginning of the article definitely doesn't sit well for me. I'm just trying to let you understand my point of view here, even though it's admittedly difficult to get over properly and I'm still not sure I really did, but I have tried. Thanks for the opportunity to at least try.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.156.32 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, your objection is more about feeling that Leo is her true love. With that in my mind, I again state her love for Ryan is a recurring theme, as is her friend/enemy relationship with Kendall. The lead does not define her by those things alone; it defines her by the other things first and then notes two (just two other) recurring themes of the character. We are not supposed to operate on our own personal biases here at Wikipedia. I understand how you feel, as I stated before. But I do not see the problem. I thank you for talking it out on this talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, you need to always sign your comments when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) beside them. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: That is essentially my main problem with it. As for what you want to do with the article, your suggestions do make a lot of sense. Whatever you decide to do. I just am thankful for the opportunity to voice my issues.129.98.193.10 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Rocksey's suggestion about the rewording. I say go for it. I am unsure about merging the couple article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the line. The main reason I suggested the couple article should be merged into this one was because I don't see it being expanded more than it already is. Unless you have plans for it. Rocksey (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. And, yeah, I know why you suggested the merge. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The recurring themes of the character line

message: "Greenleo" seems to be a fan-created term. It is highly suggestive of supercoupledom. The list of supercouples has a see also section for Greenlee and Leo that wikilinks here Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe. That article says this, "The couple is often referred to by the portmanteau "Greenleo" (for Greenlee and Leo) on Internet message boards." Are there any reliable sources for "Greenleo"? This appears to be a similar situation to "Spinmaxi" where fandom attempted to will something into existence, but failed.Wlmg (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes fan created nicknames for fictional couples are used by the media and even the show itself, but I looked and couldn't find any sources for Greenleo. Rocksey (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious what policy applies here if any. This is the first time I've tagged a section heading. The Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe article mentions that message boards mention Greenleo this could be construed as original research.Wlmg (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could qualify as original research, but we do have sections such as Portmanteau#Name-meshing and Supercouple#Internet and media trends explaining it. Because of this, I would say it falls in line with WP:Common sense. You know, how the sky being blue during the day is common sense. But I don't like the heading going by the couple name anyway, and will go ahead and change it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenleo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Greenlee Smythe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215001157/http://abc.soapsindepth.com:80/latebreakingnews/ to http://abc.soapsindepth.com/latebreakingnews/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Greenlee Smythe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208193051/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Soaps-News/Budigs-Amc-Plus/800029413%26start%3D75 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Soaps-News/Budigs-Amc-Plus/800029413%26start%3D75
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208185429/http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/WireHeadlines/2008/01/18/rebecca-budig-returns-as-greenlee-on-all-33.php to http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/WireHeadlines/2008/01/18/rebecca-budig-returns-as-greenlee-on-all-33.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704084240/http://abc.go.com/daytime/allmychildren/greenleereturns.html to http://abc.go.com/daytime/allmychildren/greenleereturns.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn.ca/The%20plot%20to%20save%20All%20My%20Children/TV_Guide/Soaps/Features/Articles/070823_all_my_children_NB.htm?isfa=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[
Greenlee Smythe]]. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208203124/http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=20&num=17842 to http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=20&num=17842
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified