Category talk:Posthumous works

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2008 January 26. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Criteria

No specific criteria is given for this category. As such, it's being populated not just with the last works of authors but any movie wherein an actor in it died between production and release. Because movies are collaborative works, I think it would be quite rare for it to fit the concept of 'posthumous' work, which indicates that there is a single creator who passed before the work was released. In a movie, why is it in the category? did the Director die? the Producer? The Writer? one of the crew? The Cast? The marketing team? Further, since every movie will be someone's last, this category can rapidly be bloated up. There are subcategories for the actors and actresses, which may be a sexist division, but to suggest a film is posthumous work oon the death of one person is shaky at best. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Almost every film is a posthumous work for somebody somewhere in the cast or crew. Consider how very long it takes for those many, many names to go by in the end credits. Almost always, some of them have died. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Posthumous" does not imply that there is a "single" creator. It implies that there were one or more contributors out of a total of n who died before the work was released. "posthumous work of X" implies a single individual. "it's being populated not just with the last works of authors" seems to indicate that you think the last work of an author is necessarily and definitively posthumous; it's not. If an author successfully survived the work's release, it's not posthumous, even if the author never produced anything else; even if he or she died right after release. I am aware that definitions of "posthumous" tend to emphasize the "author"-ness of the individual who died; irregardless, other, more broad definitions cover anything occurring after a death. Your objection, which I agree might be successfully defended, should be to the existence of this category altogether, not to the inclusion of any given work in it. EAE (Holla!) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed criterion for inclusion

When a notable contributor to any work dies before that work is released, and the work is released in its natural course, then that work should be included in this category. EAE (Holla!) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely as vague as before. Define - natural course? If this were used, in fact, we'd lose most of the writers, as I object to the concept of a generation's span between death and publication being 'the natural course'. This would cut out dozens of books, including 'The Prince, all of Tolkien's works, and many others, leaving behind The Crow, Queen of the Damned, and Batman Begins, all of which are only there because of the actors involved. ThuranX (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "in its natural course" part was intended to exclude works the author didn't intend to publish, but were published anyway after his death. I don't have a problem leaving that part of the criterion out, which leaves "When a notable contributor to any work dies before that work is released, then that work should be included in this category." As to which contributors should be included, I say all of them. If and when this category becomes too bulky, it can be subdivided into Posthumous works by writers, by actors, by directors, by XXX, etc. This category should exist, and decisions to include or exclude a given work should be made on a case-by-case basis. As we all (should) know, if a rule prevents us from making Wikipedia better, we should ignore the rule. EAE (Holla!) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea for inclusion in this category: The major contributor(s) were dead before the work was even started. Sir Laurence Olivier was dead long before his appearance in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. John Wayne was in some commercials that weren't done until long after his death. And there is the dancer/singer who appeared in a music video with his daughter (I forget both of their names) long after his death. L. Ron Hubbard "authored" a few books long after his death. (Talk about a "ghost" writer.) These are works that should be included in this category. — Val42 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that idea, on the basis that if the persons in question were dead before the work was started, then they weren't knowing or willing contributors to it. The dancer/singer you're referring to is Nat King Cole, I assume, and I don't think that work should count, because his participation in it was actually participation in another work, parts of which were reused. Olivier also did not know or intend for his images to appear in Sky Captain, and the images used were actually parts of other works, which were not posthumous. John Wayne in commercials wouldn't count either, for the same reason. EAE (Holla!) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

given this is up for deletion, I'd recommend waiting on that decision before duplicating parts of the discussion here. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revisiting criteria

SInce the CfD was no consensus, see here, we should essay to create a new standard, one not dependent on either the 'someone died during the making of this film, either of natural causes OR on set mishap', or the 'but this guy was important, so his death matters more' arguments. Those are being used to drop any movie where a death occurred, even tangentially (as in The Dark Knight). I'd rather see this limited, as discussed in the CfD, to posthumous literary and artistic works, as a result of the collaborative nature of film, and so on. Review the CfD for more views. ThuranX (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)