Talk:Orion

(Early discussion, prior to apparent Jan 2003 consensus that myth and constellation require disambiguation)
I like this set-up. The mythical figures and the constellations really are linked and should be on the same pages. --mav —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 2 December 2002‎
 * Well, for something like Orion, I would agree with you. Hercules and Perseus, not necessarily. Andromeda for me would be a borderline case. - Montr&eacute;alais —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 2 December 2002‎
 * I disagree, the constellation Orion and the mythological Orion are completely different things connected by only a single tenuous association. Throughout the rest of Wikipedia, astronomical objects which share a name with a mythological entity have separate articles; I would expect the same here. Indeed, the mythology portion of this article is already located under a different header in this current article, not really merged so much as appended to it. Bryan —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 31 December 2002‎

Philip Glass - Orion
I edited the entry for Orion by Philip Glass because it was in 2004 not 1994. Perhaps this was an act of vandalism? Regardless, it's fixed now and I cited the source. I've never cited sources on disambiguation pages before, but I didn't see anything at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) specifically prohibiting the practice. user:Moogle10000 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a Dab page rules out refs, as avoidable clutter: the Dab is here to facilitate navigation, not provide or validate facts; the date is there in case the user knows the approx chronology, and can thus rule out some of the Orions and quickly find the right article by a process of elimination. A user who wants to be sure about that date should follow the link to the article and find the reference there. --Jerzy•t 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel dim for writing simply that Dabs are "not [to] provide or validate facts...."  I should instead have writ as follows:
 * ... [the Dab is there] to make distinctions, to the extent necessary to enable the user efficiently get to the topic they need. The user should be given no topic information from the Dab page, unless it is likely to enhance that efficiency (for that user or for others). Even then the user ideally should either
 * use that info to seek, in the Dab target (or thru its links to other relevant articles), confirmation and/or qualification of the info, or
 * in general cultivate whatever habits will help them develop a hierarchy of trust in information that is derived from (in order of decreasing strength of trust)
 * reliable sources
 * WP articles that link to verifiably reliable sources that support the info they've read in those articles
 * WP articles whose sources, if accurate, would verify the info
 * WP articles that have refs whose citations sound pertinent, to the specific article info that immediately precedes the point where those refs are cited
 * WP articles in general
 * (with the same low degree of trust) both WP Dabs, and anything about which some yahoo claims "it says so in WP"
 * (I freely grant that either of those ideals of Dab-user behavior is pretty high; i argue that that reinforces especially the unsuitability of dignifying the relatively casually maintained Dab pages with reference data, and also the importance having a good disambiguation-related reason for including information that is likely to routinely assist the user's choice among the articles the Dab links to.  (That said, dates that the article does back up are not usually hard to verify; often a user may know a year -- of an otherwise potentially relevant event -- that rules out some candidate topics bcz their subject matter was still unknown or non-existent in that year. --Jerzy•t 06:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
UPS is using a computer platform called Orion ...
 * Headline-1: At UPS, the Algorithm Is the Driver

QUOTE: "UPS is using a computer platform called Orion—which is 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in the making—to help sort through an almost infinite number of options to make delivery routes more efficient." -- AstroU (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing, but the 'headline' is very inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroU (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 February
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-ups-the-algorithm-is-the-driver-1424136536?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
 * Perhaps the headline should say, "...the Algorithm Includes the Driver" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a headline (and a silly, ambiguous one). I for one am assuming you-all mean "We're amused", and hoping your critique is there as comic relief from editing -- i.e., without any request for either elucidation nor replacement. (If not, let us know!) --Jerzy•t 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Things not reasonably called "Orion" at first use
Topics like Project Orion and Orion of Thebes generally are mentioned as "Orion" only after they have already been mentioned with whichever full phrase distinguishes them from each other and the "plainer" Orions, so this Dab page is used primarily when the user knows that such longer names haven't been invoked. The longer names thus become relevant to the disambiguation process primarily when a subsequent reference has been quoted without inclusion of the first mention -- probably because "Orion" is far from central to the matter our user has seen. Thus the main body of the Dab page is for references to the various meanings of "Orion", but the "See also" section is available to cover the rarer situations where the user knows Orion is invoked but doesn't actually know that "Project" or "of Thebes" is normally part of the information that would definitively disambiguate. Putting the "Project"- and "of Thebes"-style topics in the "See also" section means that the topics easily recognized using the subject area or other available contextual info get found above "See also", without the user having to plow thru any of the phrases-mentioning-"Orion" topics, and only the users who've already ruled out all the senses that would properly be identified by a longer phrase need plow into the phrases that are longer than the ambiguous term. It is thus that Project Orion (a separate Dab), Orion of Thebes (a bio), and their ilk belong in the "See also" section, and thus that i am moving such entries there from their current positions higher on the page. --Jerzy•t 08:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Clock of God in Orion
There seems to be no information on this book in any article, nor any article that links (or rather, red-links) to it, thus per wp:Dab, i've removed the Dab entry for the topic. --Jerzy•t 08:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)