Talk:SS Botany Bay

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

[edit] Launch date

I believe that Star Trek II Khan states quite clearly that the BB was launched in 1996. --TOSrules 19:50, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

1996 is a perfectly reasonable year. He was the last of the tyrants to be overthrown, which occurred that year, he (and 80-90 "supermen") escaped and was therefore unaccounted for. Certainly if they were accounted for they would have known they left and if that was the case it would have been almost immediately, and at least: it is safe to say that the Botany Bay came from the penal colony of the same name from the late 1990s, rather than keeping it completely ambiguous. Of course not all of pieces in this universe are going to fall into place, nonetheless this, specifically, is difficult to otherwise dispute. --FuturamaGuy 16:19, 17 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I'm not quite sure exactly what your reasoning is here, but:

1. Read the Eugenics Wars article, as the footnote says, and you'll see why the date should be ambiguous.
2. Does it say in the episode that the vessel was launched from there? If not, then it isn't "safe to say" it was launched from there. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:29, Sep 17, 2004 (CEST)

I would like to see the reasoning against why Khan didn't escape in the "late 1990s", much less from "Australia". --FuturamaGuy 17:49, 17 Sep 2004 (CEST)

?? I just gave you said reasoning as to why it shouldn't be included. There is considerable doubt now, based on later references, that the Eugenics Wars did take place in the 1990s in the Trek timeline. Thus, ambiguity is key. As for Australia, if it says so in the episode, then fine, put it in. But if it doesn't, it's speculation. Why assume the ship was launched from where it was named after? -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:48, Sep 17, 2004 (CEST)

We don't need to find any "reasoning against" including speculation.. quite simply put, it absolutely should not be part of the article body unless it was directly implied or mentioned in the episode. If they didnt mention something about Botany Bay, then there's no cause for us to include the information. It's an unknown. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:18, 18 Sep 2004 (CEST)

[edit] Bajoran symbol?

Someone just added the following:

The Bajoran religious wheel symbol (sometimes seen, for example, in Kira's quarters) is composed of rotated images of the Botany Bay.

Where is this coming from? I don't think the Bajoran religious symbol is made from the Botany Bay, considering the Bajoran religion is thousands of years old. I am removing it. --OuroborosCobra 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Star Trek Encyclopedia: It is not the usual Bajoran symbol it is speaking of, but rather the "Decorative Symbol" viewable here -- Kobi 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the picture and that doesn't seem to be an accurate description of the image presented. Is it referenced in an interview or publication somewhere that that was the inspiration for the symbol? If not, I think that whole section needs to go. – TheBovaEffect 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it is mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia by the Okudas. --Jörg 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as the need to source this, if you got a good copy of the symbol, and looked at it up close, you would see that each "spoke" is an outline of the Botany Bay. The artists used one piece of stock graphic art to create another, and we can see it with our own eyes if we were willing to look... -- Captain MKB 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever happened?

Does it say anywhere in any of the canon what happened to the Botany Bay after it was robbed of its cargo pods? NeoExelor 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)