• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

No longer deep space, renaming DS9

Given that the Bajorans themselves seemed to prefer not referring to it as a wormhole, I doubt they'd call it something like Wormhole Station.

They used Prophets' Landing before, and I liked that title. Perhaps Prophets' Gateway, since the wormhole has been called the gateway to the celestial temple?
Ooh! Good thinking, Donlago. I'd go for that!
 
Emissary's Sanctuary.

They used Prophets' Landing before, and I liked that title. Perhaps Prophets' Gateway, since the wormhole has been called the gateway to the celestial temple?

While I generally favour the "Emissary's Sanctuary" from the Rebels triology -- one of the few decent ideas Winn Adami had -- I wouldn't object to 'Prophet's Gateway' as it parallel's the naming of the Prophet's Landing colony reasonably well.
 
Emissary's Sanctuary has got a good ring to it. It might be a bad choice for the Federation to put one of its Starfleet officers on a pedestal about his position among a religious group, rather than about his role as a Starfleet officer.
 
Emissary's Sanctuary has got a good ring to it. It might be a bad choice for the Federation to put one of its Starfleet officers on a pedestal about his position among a religious group, rather than about his role as a Starfleet officer.

Agreed.

In Rebels Winn Adami is responsible for the rename, which explains the inverted logic.
 
On the other hand, I don't think the Federation would be the ones naming the station, since the Bajorans are the owners. So the Bajoran government very well could name it "Emissary's Sanctuary" or even "The Sisko" if they want to.
 
What's funny is that no one ever asked the Bajorans what they thought of having one of their own stations referred to as essentially the boonies. Like, "you guys are so far out in the sticks, but we're gonna take over anyway and give your station a name that's a slap in the face with how we view you."

On the other hand, if it's standard practice to name a starbase located outside of Federation territory as "Starbase Deep Space X," then I doubt they would care. Remember, for them the station was originally Terok Nor, seat of the occupation and hated symbol of Cardassian hegemony. The most important thing for them is probably just that it be named something other than Terok Nor.

On the other hand, I don't think the Federation would be the ones naming the station, since the Bajorans are the owners. So the Bajoran government very well could name it "Emissary's Sanctuary" or even "The Sisko" if they want to.

I imagine it would depend on the specifics of the treaty Bajor and the UFP sign regarding the administration of the station. It's true that the station is Bajoran territory, but it's being administered as a Starfleet starbase by Starfleet and the Bajoran Militia. For practical purpose, compare it to the way, say, RAF Croughton is owned by the British Ministry of Defense but operated by the British Royal Air Force and United States Air Force as a USAF air base.

I imagine that UFP standard procedure is to name any starbase outside of UFP territory as "Deep Space X" unless the hosting state objects. I'm sure that if the Bajorans insisted, the Federation would agree to rename it "Starbase Gateway" or whatever. But I doubt they would agree to name it after something that explicitly endorses the Bajoran religion -- in a Federation of over 150 civilizations, Starfleet and the UFP government are probably obliged to remain religiously neutral even if Federation Member States sometimes have an official religion.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top