Talk: Orion system

kind of a problem here - this should be an article about the orion system - but the text describes some sort of Orion (planet).

As a star system article, this should list the star and the number of planets, not describe the planets themselves. -- Captain MKB 09:06, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected the Orion system page to Pi-3 Orionis - the location that is commonly known as the Orion star system.

The anomalous misplaced information is moved to Orion homeworld. It's still not a great fit, but at least it's out of the way of misidentifying the established use of the name. -- Captain MKB 09:13, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if you have a question or dispute about an article, I think it would be better to wait for a response before you start moving them around anyway.

This page (okay, not this page now, but Orion homeworld) was originally titled "Orion (planet)" (before I got on the scene) and collected together all the various references to a planet or system or some undefined place named "Orion", since that's such a nebulous term in this context. As I noted in the article, three planets and two stars claim to be called "Orion", so I cannot conclusively place these references elsewhere, nor conclusively separate them. Is the planet "Orion" Rigel VII, Rigel VIII, or some uncertain world in Pi-3 Orionis? Is the star "Orion" Rigel (i.e., Kolar, Orion) or Pi-3 Orionis? There's no way to tell since the TV series is inconclusive and we have no primacy for licensed works with offer conflicting versions.

Many of these references came from the TV series, and I've followed the MB policy of not making extra pages for TV-only references, so I included information like that for "Orion I" and "Orion III" and so on here for completeness.

As "Orion (planet)" came to describe either a planet or a system, and enough system information appeared, I renamed it some time ago to "Orion system". That's a title that does not necessarily name the system (as in cases where systems are named after their planets). Since systems may well contain information about their planets — if it's too important, or not worth it or not possible to make separate articles — I left the remaining planetary information there. It may be untidy, but it adequately described an ambiguous Orion system containing ambiguous Orion planets.

As you have it, it is incorrect to state that the "Orion system" is Pi-3 Orionis when it could equally be Rigel according to sources that name Rigel "Kolar", translated to "Orion" (Decipher RPG modules: Aliens, Worlds). -- BadCatMan 10:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I corrected a problem, this article never should have been moved to a "system" naming if it is not about a location that is a "system".

I did look into the issue, and I think we have a problem with citations here. Pi-3 Orionis is clearly identified as the Orion system, in Star Charts.

The first line of the article was "Orion is a planet"... now, my dispute is that a system is not a planet. About 90% of the article described the mystery and contradictions of the Orion "planet" and no information about the "Orion system". Star Charts says this is Pi-3 Orionis's alternate name, canon provides some references for planets here.

I think that you should have started a discussion before moving this article on 12/30/11 - and if you're going to provide "TV references" - do so - provide me with a citation that explains why this star system is in fact a planet and not a star system. -- Captain MKB 14:31, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

The Rigel system is also identified as the Orion system in Decipher RPG sources. Worlds: "...although the Orions call themselves the Kolari and their star Kolar." Aliens supports that their language "Orion" is called Kolari. Ergo, Kolar translates to Orion, Rigel = Kolar = Orion. It's impossible to identify the Orion system with Pi-3 Orionis when many, many more other sources call for their homeworld to be in the Rigel system. One name, two systems, two or more planets. It's not hard to see how this is a problem.

Be truthful. The first line of the article was "Orion was a name given to the planet that was the homeworld of the Orion race, or the star system that it orbited." The article was about the planets of the Orion system (whichever one it is), as best as I could I arrange them with the information at hand and as I understood the policies in place.

Well, it seemed entirely reasonable at the time and still does. The page title was an accurate reflection of what it contained. You could have questioned it two months ago. If you feel it was worth talking about now, you should have allowed discussion before you went ahead and did your own thing anyway.

Fine, how about we have two pages, "Orion system" and "Orion (planet)" or whatever, and I sort the references to it as a system into the former and the references to it as planet to into the latter? -- BadCatMan 15:43, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

You can't move a page to become a "system" article and then leave it "untidy" for six weeks stating "Orion is a planet" when the article is titled as a system - if you renamed "Earth" to "Sol system" and left the first line as "Earth is a planet" then that wouldn't sense either. Line after line of that article describes a planet. A system is a star or group of stars with an association of asteroids, moons, etcetera. If the article is called "Orion system", it should describe a system. Period. No amount of outrage on your part changes the simple one-to-one logic of calling systems "systems" and calling planets "planets".

I am not contesting any of the origin data for the Orion species you keep pointing out. Thus far, I have not found any citations to associated the Orion system with the Orion civilization. Clearly, there is something else going on with your research that is not reflected in the canon backbone of these articles. In canon, there is a star system Orion, which not Rigel. It has planets. None of these planets or the system itself is associated with the home system of the Orion civilization. It isn't appropriate for you to break apart the canon fact to accommodate conflicting or speculative interpretations of an apparently unrelated topic. -- Captain MKB 15:58, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. In good faith and with the best of intentions, I tried to develop this article to describe a system and the planets it contains in relation to a fairly complex issue, within the given rules and restrictions. I did not believe it possible by MB policy to make separate pages for Orion I and Orion III. I believe it's reasonable for a system article to briefly describe the important features of its planets, especially if such information cannot or should not go elsewhere.

Is it untidy, unclear or mistaken as a result? Yes, sure, I'll freely any mistake I've made. I should have rearranged the intro line and changed the categories. My fault.

I would have appreciated the opportunity to discuss this topic with you first. It's a complex issue with several interpretations; I don't jump to any conclusions and note every doubt and ambiguity. I have doubts that Orion I and Orion III or anything else belong to Pi-3 Orionis when another possibility exists. Hence why I tried to make an extended disambiguation page. I'd also appreciate it if you'd address my concerns rather ignoring or dismissing them.

As I suggested, I've rechecked all the sources and divided up all the information and discussion on the page into Orion system and Orion (planet). A few sources are vague "to Orion" and "of Orion" lines that could still go either way. What do you think of this arrangement? -- BadCatMan 06:01, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

The article is still there waiting to be developed. My actions are in no way 'blocking' you from doing so, so I'm not sure why you are so exasperated. I'm simply pointing out that this article name was taken already and the other article had some "untidy" points. Stop playing the 'outrage' card, I'm not trying to make this personal, but I've lined up the canon facts and some other references to clean up the point expressed in Star Charts.

I think that you had been confusing the "Orion system" (the system -named- Orion) with the "Orion home system" (the system where from the Orions come). This is since the 'home system' is ambiguous, and already spoken for in terms of other articles at Rigel, et cetera. There's a huge amount of information you have, but the fact is that Rigel has its own article, and Orion system should as well - we aren't going to hold off writing non-Orion species articles that relate to these star systems simply because there is a intimation that one might be the home system of your favored topic.

I really think that the Orion system/Pi-3 Orionis article is well founded in sources as is now (i.e. when I left it yesterday - without the rewrite i became aware of after i wrote this response). I can't see why you have "doubts" about an article that is sourced and arranged to match canon. The citations are plainly visible, so any other doubts you have should be cited as well. If there's a "to Orion" or "from Orion" kicking around somewhere that you feel should be recognized, start making a list and communicate it. -- Captain MKB 14:40, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Response written here was without the realization that such a list of references had already been started. -- Captain MKB 14:51, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I've said before several times why I think there's a possibility that the so-called Orion system could be the Rigel system.

Just to be clear, here's what I was aiming for and failed when I tried to develop it as a system, with fluff cut out for clarity and fixing the intro:

Orion was a name given both to a star system (TAS novelization: The Time Trap) and a planet that was the home of the Orion race. It was situated in the Orion sector (TNG episode: "Conspiracy").

The system had three inhabited worlds (TAS novelization: The Pirates of Orion).

[What follows is a list of references to "Orion" as a system, as a planet (exactly which planet being unknown), Orion I and Orion III (being reluctant to make TV-only pages about them), and miscellaneous plants and animals that may or may not come from one or more of the planets in this system.]

Does that look more agreeable? Unfortunately, it was accreting poorly out of various references but I neglected to give it a proper overhaul when I expected more information to be out there (I'd have gotten back to it eventually.) Still, I don't think it was as bad as made out. Gods know we have shabbier articles still laying out.

Moving on, and picking out a few references to examine.

The Orion system

The Orion system as an Orion home system was named in the TAS novelization: The Time Trap, where Devna is described as "a beautiful woman from the Orion system". This was the keystone to it all. The text describes her as "Orionite" but let's not go there. She goes on to say "You've seen the dances of Orion before, then?" and "I wish I could... see Orion again." which suggest a planet and Orion homeworld. Though, on second thoughts, that first line may be ambiguous, if the system is named for the planet or the people as is sometimes the case (in the sense that it's the system that contains that planet or that people).

In TAS novelization: The Pirates of Orion, the planet and system are unnamed, simply stating "their small system of three inhabited worlds", though these are both written by Alan Dean Foster FWIW. The "...of Orion" title, whether meaning planet, system, constellation, complex, nebula, or nation may just be far too ambiguous to deal with.

Looking further... The term appears in plural form in TOS novel: Ishmael ("the revolts in the Orion systems") and TOS novel: Crossroad ("no uprising had occurred in the Orion systems") while TOS novel: War Dragons mentions "The Orion system Greshik Tyrr...". Well, obviously these describe a number of Orion-held systems and don't tell us much.

Thoughts? Anyone can get involved here, not just us two obsessives. :-) -- BadCatMan 04:01, February 16, 2012 (UTC)