Jump to content

Talk:Orion (character)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure "Third World" and "Fourth World" are described accurately here. In particular, I'd been under the impression that the third world was the world that existed pre-Ragnarok, and that the Fourth World was the current one that arose following its destruction - and not specifically the separate dimension occupied by New Genesis and Apokolips.

  • I was about to w rite the same thing... my understanding was that the "third world" was the world of the "old gods." In DC One Million, Earth was called the "Fifth World." Palendrom 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOSExegesis 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Several false statements have been removed. Orion NEVER stalemated any pre-COIE incarnation of Superman in a test of strength. Shear fantasy. There is little indication of Orion being weakened on Earth Pre-IC, and none Post-IC. And finally, yes, the New Gods were affected by the COIE.[reply]

Other media

[edit]

The author seems to have some preternatural insight into Orion's "true feelings" in the episode "Flash and Substance". The paragraph

"At the end of the story, he mistakenly believes that Flash's lighthearted attitude is meant to hide "a warrior's pain". Flash and Batman have little recourse but to let Orion believe this; it is clear that powerful, polarized emotions and concepts are Orion's way of life and he cannot easily comprehend diplomacy, mercy, and empathy."

is full of conjecture and should be removed. In fact, I'll do that right now. RB 24.163.208.79 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merge

[edit]

It has been suggested that Orion (comic book) be merged with this article, please discuss. --Basique 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Merge I created this article because Orion (comics) really points to just the character, and not this series. This series is, in fact, almost completely overlooked in the article about Orion, the character. It is not uncommon - in fact it is fairly regular - that comic book characters have separate articles for their respective series. For example, arguably the most popular comic book character, Superman, has his own separate articles for his various ongoing series'. If you look at the Superman and Superman (comic book) articles, you'll note that the Superman (comic book) article is not that much longer than this article. Additionally, I feel that this article will expand somewhat. - Toodiesel 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - While your attention to the publication history of Orion and the New Gods is appreciated, I have to agree with J Greb. Publication history should be a part of the characters' article. Likewise, the Tales of the New Gods backup stories should be part of their article. CovenantD 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Basique: I thought that the merge job was done haphazardly. Much of the information present on the Orion (comic book) is missing in the Orion (comics) article. You also didn't empty/delete the Orion (comic book) article, but erased the link on the Orion (comics) page, in effect creating an orphaned article (who is going to type in "wiki/Orion (comic book)"???), and also mentioned that Tales of the New Gods should be part of "their article", in reference to Orion (comics), but that information is missing on the Orion (comics) page. Additionally, you brought up Merging, but made it seem as if someone else initially brought it up (why not write "I suggest merging..." instead of "It has been suggested..."), then had only one person out of two agree with you using an argument that is invalid now (the Orion (comic book) article was much improved on after J Greb cast his vote) and went ahead with the merge, but you didn't even respond to my arguments for not merging (many characters have their own page, as well as separate pages about titles published about them). I agree that publication history should be a part of the characters' article, but why not have the Orion (comic book) page to flesh out information about the series? Toodiesel 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An additional point, topics that were mertged to New Gods and Orion (comics) have had their info completely erased from the original article, which isn't a problem, except now there is absolutely no mention that Tales of the New Gods was even published in the Orion comic book. You'd have to look in the New Gods article for that! Toodiesel 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If anyone else is following this, I have been in contact with Basique on his talk page. I'm somewhat taken aback (as much as anyone can be when he is sitting in his jammies typing away about trivial things on the Internet) at the carelessness of the merge. None of my points were addressed, and the vote had three voters, two of them being the people in dispute. Perhaps at least leave a little more time for the voting? Additionally, why not do the work of the merge? None of the information in the Orion (comic book) article is irrelevant to the series, yet it makes little sense to mention Tatjana Wood and John Peal Leon in an article about the Orion character. Why take out the spoiler warning - that is perfectly appropriate? Other characters have separate pages regarding their publishing histories, why not Orion?
    • If you have any concerns over comic related entries and want more input then feel free to bring this up on the Comics Project talk page, as Basique has done. From what I have seen the merge seems right and the major quibbles seem to be about how much get moved over and wher it should it go. As the old entry is only a redirect we can take the material from there if it is needed. If you want to detail what else should be brough over here then we can discuss it. On a broader note most characters who have eponymous titles have those titles in their entry, like The Authority, for example, and everything seems generally in line with such things. Recreating the merged page in another place: Orion (DC Comics comic book) is defintiely not the right way to move forward (and I'd support turning that into a redirect here as it has already been voted on). As I say the way forward is to detail what of the information from the merged page you feel should go in here. (Emperor 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's not clear to me what happened here, but as of May 2011, this article is mainly about the comic "series pencilled and written by Walt Simonson" that "ran for 25 issues, from June 2000 to June 2002" and not about the character Orion. This is supposed to be the article about the character Orion, is it not? The link to "Orion" from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Gods" takes you here, as does the Orion link in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Gods". The comments above suggest that the merge blew away whatever information there once was about the character as originally presented in Kirby's "New Gods" in the early '70's. The section "Fictional Biography" is almost completely unsourced and apparently based on the 2000-2002 comic. I realize none of you young whippersnappers ever saw the original series (and indeed, I sold my collection several years ago) but Orion's partnership with Lightray on Earth (unwanted by Lightray, but forced upon him by Highfather) and Orion's epic battle with Kalibak, when he learns they are brothers (and kills Kalibak, but later writers gave Kalibak infinite lives, it seems), are seminal events in Orion's life and are not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell after looking around. (By the way, looking at the article on Lightray, it suffers as well by having practically nothing about the original series.) 24.27.31.170 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Merge again

[edit]
  • Merge with a protected redirect on Orion (DC Comics comic book) as well as Orion (comic book).
    The new page is a recreation of the (comic book) page by the only editor to voice a desire to not merge as per previous discus ion. There is no sound reason why the comic book and the character should have separate articles.
    • re the character article:
      • The character, while pivotal to a limited set of story lines, is relatively minor over all to the totality of material published relating to the "DC Universe" stories.
      • While the article most likely can expand, it is extremely unlikely that it will outgrow the 30k-50k "comfortable" file size that would suggest splitting elements into separate articles.
    • re the comic book article:
      • The comic book ran for 24 issues and is, in and of itself, of very minor importance to the material put out by the publisher.
      • From the stand point of file size, unless there is an inclusion of excessively detailed plot summaries, there is no way the article grow beyond its current state.
— J Greb 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge as the debate ha already taken place and the decision was merge. Recreating the same page at a different address should result in that page being also switched to a redirect. (Emperor 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge - as noted, this has already been discussed once. --Mrph 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge - this has been discussed, but if you look closely at the arguments, J Grub was arguing for the merge because the Orion (comic book) article was a stub, which it no longer is by any means. Additionally, why not get rid of the Superman (comic book) article, and all of the same? There is a very specific point on WikiProject: Comics that allows for separate articles for eponymous titles about characters. Will someone please address these points? Please see my points on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Merger_misery Toodiesel 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is room for comics titles and character titles of course but Superman comic has been running for 60 years and clocked up something like 500+ issues. Same with Batman (comic book). This is pretty notable in its own right and worthy of their own entries. It is still noteworthy how slim they are despite this (as all the information is largely in the character entries). Such big name, long running titles hadly compare with a limited series based around one character and the sensible thing is to merge it unless there is something notable about the series itself that would warrant a full entry. There isn't in this case. (Emperor 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - Orion was not a limited series, but a 25 issue series that got cancelled. Many cancelled series' have articles here (X-Treme X-Men, X-Men: The Hidden Years, etc...), and they are certainly unlike the Batman and Superman titles that have 50 years of continuous publishing, but somehow, they still manage to exist on wikipedia. And you ask about noteworthy things that happened in the series?? How about Orion getting the most powerful thing in the DC Universe, the Anti-Life Equation??? How about Mister Miracle already having it??? How about a real, actual, lengthy battle between Orion and Darkseid, ".. in the firepits of Apokolips." Toodiesel 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Lemons, Limes, and Oranges" X-Men is a bad example to pick, so are Batman and Superman. Bluntly, Orion does not hold a candle to them in terms of notability or in terms of the depths of material the article needs to cover. It is also very hard to compare a short run self-titled series with a short run Franchise: Title titled series. Since it is part of a franchise, and an article for the entire franchise would be unmanageably huge, there is an inherent logic and need to split off recognizable chunks. That type of exception does not present itself as valid here though.
        As for the point of notability you bring up... they are and they aren't. They are points that are important to the New Gods and Orion, definitely. To the DC Universe, maybe. To DC Comics, less so. To comics in general even less so. - J Greb 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just read J Greb's points above. If it is simply about 30-50k article file sizes, I have no problem writing about the series at that length. I have done the work so far and will continue to, and have had no problem with any editing/expanding of the article. I feel that saying "this is too minor a thing to bother with" undercuts the point of wikipedia, in that trivial things are detailed at great length because volume size and printing costs are not a burden.Toodiesel 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      • Existence is not a guarantee of an article. There are many thins, trivial and otherwise, that don't have article and have had their articles deleted. In essence that's what happened with the first merge: an editor saw two short articles on essentially the same subject. He suggested they be merged, and, with the support of the majority of the editors that voiced an position merged the articles with an eye towards like articles (similar length, similar degree of notability, and similar degree of use)
      • Padding out an article invites other editors to review it in light of WP:ATT and WP:WAF. The goal is to have a clear, concise, encyclopedic article, not to have a review crafted for a media out let or a fan site.
      • You brought up a valid point that should be addressed on this talk page: circulation and printing details about the series. If they can be cited, not to hard a task, and kept in the pub history, I think they go a long way in rounding the article out. As long as the above goal is kept in mind, all the information should be here. To that end, the lead here may need a slight tweak to include the self titled series.
- J Greb 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With regards to "Padding out an article", I can't think of a single instance where I've expressed an opinion in the Orion (DC Comics comic book) article. Every single statement is a fact and descriptive of either the series itself, or the publishing history. Toodiesel 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking at it as it stands right now, it looks like you've covered everything short of a plot synopses. Adding that in a reasonable way wouldn't seem to fill out the article much more than it already is. The only way I can see making the article substantially larger would be to do the plot summaries in excessive detail. That would be padding it out. If my previous comment came across as an accusation that you were current;y padding the article, that was not my intent. — J Greb 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If anyone hasn't read this yet, I've given up the struggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Merger_misery I still don't understand the point of not wanting separate articles, nor do I understand the strong desire for 50KB sized articles, but I'll accept it just so it's easier to continue forward. Also, if DC ever decides to publish a vol 2 of Orion, be it a mini-series, an ongoing, or even a 3 page Crayola concoction on tattered loose-leaf that Dan DiDio decided to publish after a five month bender, the fight will be renewed with vigor and aplomb. Toodiesel 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Simonson's Orion

The fight between Orion and Darkseid is in the issue 5 of the series, and orion attains the Anti-life Equation sometime later (issue 13 o 14, i must cheek). While ruling Apokolips (after seemingly killed Darkseid with his own Omega Beam) Orions, must face the attacks of Kalibak and, later, Desaad. During these confrontations, the clones of Billion Dollars Bates grant to Orion the complete Anti-life equation. After some doubts, Orion finnaly uses it to control Apokolips. Then goes to earth to ensure that the Anti-life equation doesnt emerges again in some earthman, and to that end uses the anti-life on earth's people, ordering them to care about each other (but destroying any free-will). When he is about to create an universal utopia, Darkseid and Metron plots to destroy orion, now that he is the most powerful and dangerous being in the universe. The plot fails too soon. But Scott Free (who is inmune to the equation) disguises as the Black Racer and fights against Orion to lure him inside a Doom Tube (a Boom tube without Exit). Orion falls in another dimension, where is the World Tree. The guardian of the Tree was captured by the Ecruos, the absolute and cosmic chaos and the enemy of the Source. The ecruos whish to destroy the multiverse, and to that end is merging with the roots of the world tree (axis mundi or Yddgrassil). Orion fights hopelessly against the Ecruos, and then figures that the equation is Absolute Order and the antithesis of the Ecruos, and gives the equation to the Ecruos, cancelling each other (the ecruos and the equation).

(sorry if my english is not very good).

Illapa

the infobox image

[edit]

I have readded the image that was in this edit. I think it is better due to the fact that is shows the cover of his first appearance (if the infobox is right). Any other opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well not quite, that image is actually a re-work — recolored and digitally touched up — reprint of the cover from the Omnibus. The FUR isn't correct save where DrBat found it.
That's only part of the problem I've got with it.
The main thing is that it isn't any different from the image that DCI replaced here. The only visible argument is that "It's Kirby", and I'm sorry that isn't a compelling argument without more than just one editor doing the change. The project level guideline is met by the Cullins image, plain and simple. - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it wasn't actually a scan of the original cover. Do you think a week or so would be fine for getting input from other editors?--Rockfang (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be a problem. Though a note may be needed on the other image, otherwise it may need to undeleted if the discussion goes that way.
Good idea. Just added one.--Rockfang (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been more than a week, I'm going to restore the other image and remove the miss-FURred one. - J Greb (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

messy merge?

[edit]

When the character's page was merged with the comic book page, a lot of things seem to have gotten left out. There is very little pre-crisis info and the page seems to be dominated by the Simonson book. I think that the comic book should have been a paragraph or two (tops) of the entry and I think the character's info needs to be fleshed out. Shoeless Ho (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup: Publication History

[edit]

I took a crack at making the article less "Orion (comic book)" oriented. I added some details on his pre-crisis appearances and his appearances in various post-crisis runs of Justice League and New Gods. I'm not super familiar with the character's history in the Hunger Dogs and other mid-80s comics, so maybe someone could expand on that. I think the character's biography could use some of the same treatment if anyone wants to tackle it. Shoeless Ho (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orion_(character)&oldid=1204456530"