Talk:Cousin Oliver

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles

Fictional characters

This redirect 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

Television

This redirect 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

No mention of the Brady Bunch themed episode from the final season of X-Files, that had a plot that revolved around the Cousin Oliver character?

No, it's there. Michael 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Yes Cousin Oliver should be merged with Cousin Oliver Syndrome. They are basically the same article.Manufracture 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mama's Family

Should Tiffany Thelma Harper count? If I remember correctly, she wasn't born until the last ten minutes of the very last episode. Moogaboo 12:30, 9 June 2006

Pregnancy

A few of the Olivers listed where caused by a main female character getting pregnant and thus having an "addition to the family". Surely this is not the same as a cousin Oliver? Although I admit this might coincide. An acknowledge pregancy (pregnancy is written into the show rather than covered up by big shoulder bags or a claim the character is getting fat (Fraiser)) will lead to a baby; acknowledging the pregnancy but not having the baby to show for it is a sort of Chuck Cunningham. abcarter 17:28, 26 june 2006 (CET)

Mastering the Domain

I just read the "Jump the Shark" entry and noticed that the opposite (in relation to television) is referred to as "Growing the Beard", which marks the point when a show really starts to get good. What about shows that never jump the shark or resort to other cheap contrivances simply to sustain their longevity? I propose that a new catergory be given to those shows that have gone beyond the stage of growing the beard to the point of "Mastering the Domain" by never getting bad and going out on top. Obviously this is a reference to the "Seinfeld" episode that many consider to be the fulcrum upon which it transitioned from a mediocre sitcom to a ratings behemoth and critical touchstone. Seinfeld, arguably, never got bad after that point and the series was ended despite huge offers of money to the people involved. In a way "Mastering the Domain" could be an honorific for such rare instances of artistic integrity, especially within the creatively vacant medium that is television. However, it should only refer to television shows that had time to develop a critical audience, not shows like "Freaks and Geeks" or "My So-Called Life" that only lasted one season and were barely seen. Also, it should not refer to shows like "Arrested Development" that had ample time to develop, but were forced out despite remaining great from start to finish. "Mastering the Domain" should refer to those shows that went out of their own volition at (or very near) their critical and commercial peak. This can include all genres and formats, so long as it was on television. I'll start the list:

Seinfeld Kids in the Hall Mr. Show

Why were all the examples deleted?

Will someone please explain to me why this happened? True, there are a few examples that don't necessarily count as the syndrome (like a baby being born but not growing up into an adolescent, or having any hugely important role, at any point in the series later on), but most of the examples are valid. Why else would the article have been up for so long?

Speaking of that, it seems as though someone on Wikipedia has a vendetta against television syndrome-related articles. I mean, this article had all the examples deleted, and then there's the situation with the Chuck Cunningham syndrome article, which is up for deletion (and that article had been up for a long time as well). In either case, it is being argued that the articles include mostly original research, but how can that be when there are valid examples?

Does someone have something against television, or am I missing something? --COMPFUNK2 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is Cousin Oliver, not The Cousin Oliver Syndrome or List of shows that added a cute character later. If you want to start a list-article that includes the list of examples, go for it, but everything has to be sourced. It isn't a "valid example" without a source. wikipediatrix 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with wikipediatrix. The entire point of the article is that Cousin Oliver is more than just a character. It is an expression for an introduction of a new character to try to rejuvenate a television program. I am reverting. --Asbl 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want, but Wikipedia policy is very clear about WP:OR. Get some sources for these claims. wikipediatrix 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. You can see all those characters in the articles of those shows. --Asbl 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming those characters and those shows never existed. There are two elements of Original Research that come into play in these Syndrome/List articles. First, the idea that a failed attempt to add new cute kids is a Syndrome at all. Where is the external source that specifies the characteristics and criteria of this alleged Syndrome? And why should it be called Cousin Oliver and not something else? Who made up that name? Does any cute kid count, or only where it results in the quick cancelation of the show? It is not our place as WP editors to decide such things; an external source must exist that already clearly designated this concept before we can start writing about it. Given that the initial idea is itself vague, nebulous and unverified, then to proceed with adding a list of supposedly like situations from other shows is the second tier of Original Research. Who says those shows and casting additions are like? Why are they all grouped together? Anything added to the list must have an external referecne that states, not that it merely happened, but that it is a case of "Cousin Oliver" Syndrome. Asa01 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I don't have anything against television (many of my edits are on that topic) but I regularly vote against all these List/Syndrome articles because I see them as OR for the reasons I stated above. I see no reason why these additions of cute kids can't be just be referenced in the particular articles about those television shows. If people are really keen to write about the addition of Cousin Oliver, great, do it on The Brady Bunch and Robbie Rist pages. Why invent a syndrome that effective duplicates info usually already listed in the articles on each of those TV shows? Asa01 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, answer me this: if this and other syndromes were such an issue, why are people bringing it up now when articles like this and Chuck Cunningham syndrome have been up for months? --Anthony Rupert 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if such a plot device is so prevalent as to be in all the shows listed in the examples, and to have a name for it, shouldn't it merit its own article, as a television terminology term of art? Wl219 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a separate article called Cousin Oliver Syndrome, but it was merged into this article. I think it was the right approach, as each article would not be very extensive, so there is no reason to break them into two separate articles. --Asbl 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult characters

A lot of Cousin Oliver examples are introductions of child characters, but what about introductions of adults? I'm thinking of the addition of Seven of Nine to Star Trek: Voyager in particular. Wl219 04:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is illustrated in the description of the term, Cousin Oliver refers to a new child character, not merely a new character. This is why I deleted the That '70s Show entry for Randy Pearson. --Anthony Rupert 09:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so is there a term for Cousin Oliver as applied to adults? That was what I was trying to ask. Wl219 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to my knowledge. Why not create a list of replacement TV characters? I'll be glad to contribute. --Anthony Rupert 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My take on "Cousin Oliver" is that it's an introduction of a "cute kid" as a desparate attempt to bolster the ratings of a sagging television series. Seven of Nine in Voyager doesn't count, since she was brought in to replace a character who had left the series (Kes). The thing about a "Cousin Oliver" is that the character is artificially shoehorned into the mix. I didn't get that sense with Seven. Just my 0.02... Kilraven 00:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions to the syndrome

I deleted a few of the examples listed because I really don't think all babies should count. Like, if a character on a show has a baby but the baby doesn't become a real pivotal character on the show in his/her own right (e.g. the viewers don't see the baby grow up into adolescence and later have episodes tailored to him/her), that's not really Cousin Oliver syndrome.
Anyone agree? --Anthony Rupert 09:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is require that the character reaches adolescence, but they do have to pass the toddler stage and have speaking roles. --Asbl 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. --Anthony Rupert 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Anything that doesn't have reliable sources caliing it a "Cousin Oliver" should be removed per the verification policy. - brenneman ^{L} 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the only reference is to a website that doesn't appear to be a reliable source. The responsability to demonstrate verifiability rests on those persons wanting the material included. Persons removing material without reliable sources should not just be reverted. The users who want the material included are expected to find appropriate sources. I have included a {sources} tag, if anyone considers this to be inappropriate then could they provide reasoning. Addhoc 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so far no sources have been provided to justify Examples of the Cousin Oliver Syndrome other than possibly [1], which is a student based journal and therefore not compliant to WP:RS. If no reliable sources are forthcoming, I propose to delete this unreferenced section. Addhoc 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion supported. Asa01 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...what, any TV syndrome-based article should have it's examples deleted? To make everyone happy, maybe the name of the article should be changed to The New Cute Kid because that was how the syndrome was classified on VH1's SuperSecret TV Formulas. --Anthony Rupert 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony Rupert, all material in Wikipedia, regardless of subject, should have references. Addhoc 10:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But SuperSecret TV Formulas is a reference. It was an actual show, and The New Cute Kid was one of the episodes. Before the end of the day, I'll create the article. --Anthony Rupert 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources", in this context, I don't think a TV show is a reference. Addhoc 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't s TV show a "published source"? PMA 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMA, in this context, a comedy TV show would clearly not be considered a secondary reference and therefore could not be a citation in Wikipedia. Addhoc 10:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...SuperSecret TV Formulas was not a comedy show. Anthony Rupert 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SuperSecret TV Formulas wasn't a comedy. Regardless, the discussion concerning the disputed table is finished and if you want to write an article about this TV show, that's fine by me. 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)