Talk:Greenlee Smythe

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

"The original" mentions

Was it really needed to put "the original Greenlee" in the photo title, considering the controversy such comments have already caused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.30 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was necessary, and The Original Greenlee mentions are not what caused the controversy. It was The Real Greenlee mentions by ABC and its promotional team that did. Fans, however, have been using "the real" talk for years in concerns to some original portrayers and recasts, of course.

There's nothing controversial whatsoever about calling Rebecca Budig The Original Greenlee. She is. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Budig originated the character Greenlee ipso facto she is "the original Greenlee". Wlmg (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now changed the title of the Recast and return of original section to Recast and Budig return; not because of this old discussion (of course)...but rather because the latter title seems more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance??

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grrenlee Smith duPres-Lavery

--Sango Kirara 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recurring themes of the character line

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Joining the discussion per Flyer's request. I both agree and disagree with what you're saying IP. I don't see how the lead infers that Greenlee is defined by her relationships with Ryan and Kendall. The lead starts out defining her as a fictional character on All My Children, then moves on to give an overview of casting for the character (which is later expanded in the body of the article), then it briefly describes her evolution from a bad girl to a heroine followed by her involvement with Ryan and Kendall. Though referring to those relationships as "continuing themes" for the character probably isn't as important as the rest of the information in the lead. I would feel better about the line if Greenlee's relationship with both characters was gone into more detail in the body of the article in either a Reception or Writing section instead of just the Storyline area. That way it would have to be supported by a secondary source and therefore "proven" to be notable in a real world perspective.

It seems like the main problem you have is with referring to the character's love for Ryan as a recurring theme. Maybe we could reword the line so it says something like "Greenlee's relationships with Ryan Lavery and Kendall Hart feature prominently in the character's storylines" or something similar. That way we aren't focusing on her love for him since they have a relationship that has taken on different forms over the years, just like her relationship with Kendall.

Also, I think it might be a good idea to mention Leo more in the article since he is a continuing influence over Greenlee's character who featured prominently in the evolution and popularity of the character. Maybe we could merge Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe article into this one so there will be a reception section here which goes into their popularity. Rocksey (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good job. And, yeah, I know why you suggested the merge. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenleo

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Greenlee Smythe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]