Subcategories for Category:Star TrekEdit

Companies vs Stages, etcEdit

I'm not totally convinced that the Paramount Stage articles should be in this category, but at the moment, I can't think of a better place for them, unless we create a subcategory (maybe?) of production locations or something. Any thoughts counter to this? -- Sulfur 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Production company sub-categories Edit

I see that Category:Production companies contains both companies which actually produced Star Trek series and/or films (such as Desilu, Viacom and so forth) and companies which were sub-contracted for things like visual effects and makeup (such as Burman Studio, Gregory Jein, Inc., Digital Domain and so forth). Would it make sense to have subcategories for the latter, perhaps along these lines:

We might also consider further subdivisions of the visual effects production companies category, perhaps into sub-sub-categories like Category:Model-making companies, Category:Matte painting companies, and Category:Computer-generated effects companies; however, this might be too complicated, as some companies (such as ILM) would fit into more than one sub-sub-cat. I also don't know whether we want to have categories for things like sound, or if that would go under "post-production". Finally, if we do this, would the companies that produced Star Trek proper have their own subcategory, or would they just stay in the parent cat? I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on any of this. –Josiah Rowe 02:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Do we actually need these sub-cats? I generally believe that we shouldn't add a sub-cat unless there are at least 5-10 pages that would fit into it. - Archduk3 21:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly >10 pages that could go into a visual effects companies subcat, and probably between 5 and 10 for makeup companies. Not sure about the others, though. –Josiah Rowe 07:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I support any sub-cat that can get 5-10 pages in it. - Archduk3 07:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
If there are at least 5-6 entries for a category, support. Otherwise, no. I might suggest compiling a list of what would be sorted into where and then listing that here. If that list is suitable (which you should be able to tell, simply by looking at it), it should give a better idea as to what categories would be good, and which would not. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

The article Production companies could be a starting point: there are 10 companies listed under "Producers and distributors", which could be the basis for a "producers and distributors" category (unless somebody can think of a better name). Visual effects and makeup are lumped together in that article under "Effects"; I had thought that they could be broken down into digital visual effects, model makers, makeup companies and so forth, but it turns out that there are several companies (such as Film Illusions and Image G) which would fit into multiple categories, so perhaps a single "Effects companies" category would be best. Production and post-production subcontractors are listed together on that page as "Filming/Sound/Editing"; can we think of a better term for this group? –Josiah Rowe 05:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

You're missing what I meant. Come up with some suggested categories, and create a page in your user space listing each category suggestion as a header, with the companies listed under each one. No need to group stuff together randomly either. Just group as is logical. -- sulfur 10:12, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created such a list at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox. As you will see, some companies fit into multiple subcategories (e.g., Industrial Light & Magic did digital visual effects, matte paintings and model work). There are also a few that I couldn't figure out subcategories for: about six general special effects companies, and three companies that are in Category:Production companies but don't fit into any of the subcategories I've come up with.

I hope this is what you were looking for. –Josiah Rowe 04:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

My first big problem with this is there is no "parent category" for all of there, so I suggest Production Companies become that, while the pages currently in that category to be filed under one called Television and Film. The second is that a good number of the various effects pages are also post production, so better names and breakdowns should be found, maybe along physical, digital, and "visual" (special effects) lines, using that in the name of the categories? Third, any category with less than five pages in unnecessary IMO, since they can easily be under the parent category (production companies). All in all though, good work, despite my griping. - Archduk3 04:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that I don't have a very solid understanding of the different ways in which digital effects are used in production and post-production. Feel free to fiddle with the page, rearrange and improve the arrangements. –Josiah Rowe 04:52, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the only categories with less than five entries are "Live event production companies" and "Film production support companies" (and if we can find or create one more page in that category, it would have five – I'd wager that there are caterers or trailer companies or transport companies that have worked on Star Trek production that we don't have pages for). –Josiah Rowe 05:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Defiant would be a good person to ask about this, as it seems he has a good grasp of what these companies do, based on his additions to the background information sections of episode articles. - Archduk3 05:05, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I dropped him a line. –Josiah Rowe 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but I don't think I'm the right person for this. I've only been studying the making of Voyager episodes recently, so I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the companies listed. I've made one of only two contributions I'd be inclined to make; the other would be a preference for the 2 "distributors" cat titles, rather than the 2 "distribution companies". My humble advice would be to keep in mind the distinction between special effects and visual effects; the former being on-set effects (see the production subsection in the "The 37's" article for such an example) and visual effects (FX created after-the-fact, such as both motion control and CGI usages). "Special effects" is also a catch-all term, though, referring to both kinds of effects, much like how "Classical" music refers to all its subgenres, including classical music! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. --Defiant 09:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest Sennim as a candidate for helping out with this; he seems to know more about effects & FX houses (especially generally) than I do. --Defiant 09:56, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I dropped him a line. :) –Josiah Rowe 20:03, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sennim was helpful in pointing out the distinction between special effects and visual effects. I have rearranged the subcats accordingly. I've also removed the subcategories that had fewer than 5 entries, per Archduk3's suggestion.

I've also had an idea about how to resolve the issue that many visual effects are done in post-production: the relevant subcategories can be placed both under the "special effects companies" category and under the "post-production companies" category. The only question is what to do with effects techniques which have during the course of Star Trek production migrated from in-camera effects to post-production digital effects. (I'm thinking specifically of matte paintings here: I believe that in the days of, say, the Genesis Cave in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the matte was a physical painting on glass placed in front of the camera, but these days any matte painting is put in digitally in post-production. And yet "Matte painting companies" is a useful category, as is "post-production companies". Hmmm.)

If people could take another glance at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox and see if the current proposed division is plausible, it would be appreciated. :) –Josiah Rowe 06:33, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with the category names as purposed at this point. Anything else can be dealt with in the provisional category stage, but I think this is good to go. - Archduk3 06:33, November 15, 2010 (UTC)