This is the talk page for the article "The galaxy/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Radical changeEdit

I propose deleting all the planets. Here only the most basic aspects of the galaxy will be described, like 'geographical' description of each portion (eg. Hutt Space, Colonies, Rims etc), and brief history. The planets, systems and sectors will be moved to the respective portion.Moff Rebus 21:43, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. As I stated earlier, this should not be a dumping ground for planets and other locations, but should be covered in those respective region articles. The general breakdown in Wookieepedia should be as follows:

Galaxy --> Regions --> Sectors --> Systems --> Planets, Moons, Asteroids, etc
-- Riffsyphon1024 23:25, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

    • I also agree; with both comments. --Beeurd 00:08, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Concurring the agreement --Imp 00:12, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Should this be in the Star Wars Category, the Star Wars locations category, or both?-LtNOWIS 16:13, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

It's a generalization article with links to all facets of the galaxy, both location and being wise. I dont think it needs to be a location itself though. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)


Should this be simply titled "The Galaxy"? --SparqMan 01:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Falmarin 02:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More pages link to the redirect page galaxy anyway. We should move it to either Galaxy or The Galaxy, I don't care which. -- Silly Dan 02:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll accept The Galaxy with "galaxy" redirecting to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The Galaxy" has my vote. --Imp 22:53, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

A QuestionEdit

Just how many planets, sectors, whatnot, do we have to put here? I would hope it doesnt become a dumping ground when there's other pages for that. There are the main articles for these lists. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Type 3 civilization"Edit

Is there an in-universe source for this? I've heard this terminology used by futurists and other earthly speculators on the potential for interstellar civilization in this galaxy, but if it's not a classification system used by people in the GFFA, I don't think it belongs in the meat of the article. jSarek 10:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe this is a term from the Wikipedia article. Type 3 refers to the Kardashev scale. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:19, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • It's good trivia for the BtS section. Perhaps something on how the technology SW Galaxy seems to focus on space travel and weapons, instead of information technology and weapons (such as our Earth), should be put there as well. --Imp 23:33, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the scale I was remembering. In that case, the Star Wars Galaxy isn't a Type III civilization, or even a Type II civilization; they don't use all of the energy available to them from even a single star, let alone the whole galaxy. jSarek 00:40, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at that Wikipedia article, and it actually lists Star Wars as Type II. --Beeurd 01:06, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe when I copied the tables from that article (since I'm fascinated with it), it had Star Wars-type civilization at the beginning of a Type III, but pointed more to being between 2 and 3. Either way, its still much more advanced than us; Earth stands at 0.7 on the scale. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:43, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • I would put it as a 2.9 or 2.95 since they have colonized the majority of the galaxy. Comparison with Earth is unnecessary, given our pitiful location on the scale. --Marco Polo 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I should revise my statement. Michio Kaku feels that we are at Type 0, that there is no decimal point. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the scale isn't only based on how they get their energy but how much they can make. also the star forge gets its energy from a star so that automatically puts it at type 2. i also agree with marco polo that the star war's galaxy isn't a type 3 but is close to it. people have said that the scale has a very large gap between type 2 and type 3 because you go from getting all the energy from one star to getting all the energy from hundreds of billions of stars. i'm not an expert on the scale but i would have to say the star war's galaxy would be about 2.1 simply because they don't harvest all the energy from the stars. While most civilizations in the galaxy are type 1 standing alone and considering there are so many planets i think that the scale is flawed and that there should be an intermediate between 2 and 3 probably where a civilization harvests all the energy of all the planets in a galaxy Dumac

Although surely the Death Star itself elevates the galaxy to a type III position, right? If a single hypermatter core can generate so much energy in such a short period of time then surely it must qualify. - User:L-W

Deep CoreEdit

Hmm, I like how we have a load of planets listed for the least populous region in the galaxy, and then only one or two for the rest... But that wasn't my query. Where is the source for Empress Teta being in the Deep Core? The Star Wars Insider map shows it in the Core Worlds,m just above Coruscant. --Beeurd 00:57, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that map location was an error; I've always heard of it being in the Deep Core. At any rate, here's a source that discusses the planet in detail, and whose title says it all: Byss and the Deep Core - Part 2: Empress Teta jSarek
    • Aha, thanks for that. Learn something new every day.=D --Beeurd 20:53, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Behind the scenes: the Galaxy seen in ESBEdit

Not to mention the spelling errors, this section is very poorly written. Has George Lucas or anyone of any importance ever explained this object? It really looks too much like a galaxy to be retconned as anything else... I'm surprised it wasn't fixed in a Special Edition ;) Azizlight 14:20, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I always figured that, to avoid detection, the Rebel fleet was stationed far out in the Outer Rim and at a high enough degree above the ecliptic (which I think is the right word), so they could, in essence, 'look down' at the galaxy. Kuralyov 15:10, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I wrote it in haste. I don't know much about astronomy, but whatever the explanation, many think that to be in such a position, would be technically implausible: The Rebel fleet had to travel a great amount of light years out of the Galaxy (not just 'far out in the Outer Rim'). I have indeed read some explanations made by 'anyone of any importance' but the problem remains. I was hoping someone of you might have read something more about this subject Moff Rebus 20:10, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
There are no physical barriers around a galaxy. Considering the hyperdrive speeds demonstrated in the films, there's really nothing too implausible about it. It would probably only take a few hours, or at most a few days to travel such a distance. --Vermilion 09:50, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, not impossible or implausible at all with their technology. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:03, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the 'Behind the scenes' section. Please edit as needed. --Vermilion 09:43, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • It's so odd though, because the 'galaxy' in that scene looks just like the map of the galaxy at the top of the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:45, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup, I believe they used the same image. And I actually found it on the 'net somewhere but can't remember where exactly. I have th file saved on my HD if anyone eants it. --beeurd 22:38, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly is Saxton's article found? I can't find a link to it from his main page MoffRebus 12:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

looks like a forming solar system to me. as the nebula condenses it begins to spin rapidly and to convserve angular momentum it flattens out. At the center was what looked like a protostar or a star that is just about to start nuclear fusion. This would explain why the object was spinning so rapidly and the bright point in the middle. This would mean that another large star, possibly one without a solar system went supernova and the process to create a solar system started Dumac

After reading Tales Of the Bounty Hunters (Zuckuss' one) it seems the rebel fleet was in hiding just outside the galaxy. would this not explain pic? [use:DarthJawa]

Has anyone ever done any math considering the distance between the rendezvous point and the object seen in the scene? My very quick calculations (which can be wrong, I admit) say that even if the object would span 90 degrees of view, the Rendezvous point would be at least 60 thousand light years away from the object (that is, if the object is indeed The Galaxy). This would rule out the possibility for the object to be the galaxy, since there is supposed to be the "Hyperspace Disturbance" around the galaxy, unless this disturbance is signifigantly further away from the edge of the galaxy than excpected. Aleph78 23:14, December 4, 2009 (UTC)Aleph78


When the Millenium Falcon is moving to "the thing that may be the galaxy" he's somewhere between Bespin and Sullust, in the Outer Rim and far away from the Core. The picture could really show the galaxy, but only the Core (the white ball in the center) with a few other regions around. It could also be, as already written, a nebula, but I don't think so, because the Falcon flies just into it. I hope you can understand me... I'm German, and my English isn't very good. MTFBWY!

  • Guten tag MTFBWY. There is much speculation about what it might be, but I personally feel it is the galaxy and they are out of its plane. Its not impossible to travel outside the galaxy with the technology they have. Plus it looks just like the galaxy in the map at the top. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:43, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • How come no one seems to notice the Falcon doesn't fly into that thing? It turns completely around and heads in the opposite direction of the Rebel fleet. I personally consider this to be something in support of it not being the Galaxy. --Fade 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


On the page: THIS IS A PIECE OF CRAP BROUGHT TO YOU BY MCEWOK. THX, AND HAVE A NICE DAY :D What is the point of this? This could be considered by many to be vandalism. I will remove it. Θ 05:18, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Obvious vandalisms don't need to be reported here. Just delete. MoffRebus 12:37, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you really even need to post that? Theta, if something is complete crap and you know it, just remove it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:51, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • It's part of a proliferation of anti-McEwok spraypainting by I'm not sure why Θ thought it was by me. That IP isn't even in the same hemisphere as I am. ("It's not my fault!!") --McEwok 01:00, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, McEwok, I knew that you wouldn't do such a thing. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:42, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not an entirely explored Galaxy?Edit

I mean I was dissappointed when I discovered the Republic only govern one galaxy not the others, I mean the Universe is full of other 100 billions of other galaxies, so why didn`t Republic started an extragalatic-expedition missions in its 25,000 years history? I was even more disappointed when I discovered 1/3(Unknown Region) of the galaxy haven`t been explored yet (before the Galactic Alliance was formed) in the old-Republic`s 25,000 years existence. Do you guys feel the same way? -Darth Tader

  • A galaxy is a big place. Look hopw long its taken us just to get Earth mapped out. --Fade 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I had the same feeling when I first saw the movies, that the Star Wars saga takes place among 'galaxies'. However all the saga concerns the history of THE Galaxy :) MoffRebus 10:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they send ships out to seek new forms of life? The galaxy always seems to be in trouble with something so the budget for the operation was cut by 60%. Once there is peace the expiditions would probably start up again Dumac

New Galaxy PicEdit


Scan from Star Wars Insider, should we replace the old one with this one? -- Chrisyu357 07:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems both more clear and also more complete. I'd say replace, but keep the old one in a gallery. MoffRebus 11:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As usual, they left out all KOTOR planets, the NEC map was more accurate I think, but never mind. And why is Nar Shaddaa so far from Nal Hutta if it's supposed to be its moon? - Sikon [Talk] 11:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hope somebody can find a scan of the NEC map!!! MoffRebus 12:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • How did Honoghr did closer to the Maw than Kessel? At least they marked the Centrality this time... Thanos6 12:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There is an NEC map already. It's just got the page line going down the middle, which kinda stinks. See here --Xwing328(Talk) 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should fan-made maps really be included here? Northerner 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another mapEdit

From the Dark Horse website: [1]. - Sikon 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Bloody swine!! With all of these maps showing different things, how are we supposed to know which is the right one? DarthMRN

Again, another mapEdit

I reckon we should replace the main map with Modi's map, or one of the one's you find on a image search. what do you say?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No, since it's not official. The one we have is fine - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


In the opening paragraph, it's stated that: "According to some sources, the Galaxy was 100,000 light years across, or 36,832.4 Parsecs (a parsec is 3.258 light years) across." So, what are those sources? According to Shield of Lies, the Inside the Worlds... etc. the Star Wars galaxy is 120,000 light years across (funny enough, the number of Parsecs is consistent with a 120,000 ly galaxy). Northerner 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but my guess would be that it's SuperShadow Fanon. someone might want to take a look Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well if the parsecs are the same. them take the number of LY in a parsec, and multiply it by number of parsecs that you keep finding, and whichever number comes out should be the right one, which according yo you is 100,000 LY. -Z.T.
    • So is the Galaxy 100,000 L.Y. across or 120,000 L.Y. across? You're making it so complicated with the whole math thing... I hate math... It confuses me. Can someone just tell me what's the diameter of the Galaxy? Cyfiero 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Galaxy Map siteEdit


Is this Map and Nav Computer any good? I wanted to check with evryone before posting it in Externle Links Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This map was created for the purposes of the game, it includes lots of fan-invented planets and isn't always accurate when it comes to canonical ones. - Sikon 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That explains the extra planets in the Corellian System Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • has several maps used here already so yes that site is accurate. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I applaud the work and research which has been done with the maps over at However, there are a few things to consider. The TPM novelization specified the location of Naboo and AOTC showed the location of Geonosis (and in extension the location of Tatooine and Naboo which corresponds to the approximate location of Naboo in the TPM novelization). The maps doesn't take the highest canon in consideration and has placed all three planets in locations which doesn't reflect the highest canon at all and which doesn't agree with several official maps (such as the maps found in the Inside the Worlds of... books and the Insider maps). Northerner 14:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speeking of which does anyone have any ide3a when the site will be finished with construction Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How did the Old Republic manage to explore the galaxy only in one direction?Edit

The capital is near the center of the core. Granted, explorers can't readily go through it, but they could go around it -- and clearly did to reach places like Fondor. Clusters might cause problems due to the problems of using Hyperspace in their vicinity. However, I would expect those to be evenly distributed across all locations at that distance from the core. Will (talk -- contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The Left Turn was only invented in the closing years of the Old Republic ;P -Dangerdan97 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's so funny I forgot to laugh. Sorry. Must be the Vulcan in me. Will (talk -- contribs) 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably hyperspace disturbances. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The galaxy is flat, like the earth. You can move in a 2D-plane only, the same as in space. All starships have a built-in left-hand twist. And one side of the galaxy is defined as "up", the other as "down". Starships are not allowed to fly upside down. Or even tilted! Tilted! Hell are you crazy? That's why it is impossible to land on the south hemisphere of a planet. Now comes the point why the galaxy is explored counter-clockwise: The planets in clockwise direction have a interesting south hemisphere, but uninteresting north-hemisphere, while the others are the other way.--TeakHoken91.7.47.136 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? First off, the galaxy has 3 dimensions. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • He was making a joke. jSarek 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is because the deep core was so hard to get through, so explorers went outward and just kept exploring in that direction. You know, "The Slice" and all. I figure it was just less of a hassle to keep going out than to go around the deep core.


Somethings up with the link. I keep getting this crap about anti-virus and web searching. Can someone fix this?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, it's a problem on his end, not ours. :-( jSarek 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Google and then click on images. Click on any of the maps and see what happens.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's even weirder now. The site's gone down. Anyone had a look recently?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, the site's down. He said he's been trying to fix it, but appearantly so far no good. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Essential Chronology Map???Edit

Shouldn't that OLD, OLD, OLD, Chronology map be replaced with the updated version from the NEW Essential Chronology? It just looks so....old!!!

Number of planets?Edit

There were approximately 400 billion stars and around half of these had planets that could support life. 10% of those developed life, while sentient life developed in 1/1000 of those (about 20 million).

This is at the top of the article. So, there are 200 billion stars with planets capable of supporting life. That means there is at least 200 billion planets where things can survive. Great. What if there is more than one such planet orbiting any given star. Is there no source which states approximately how many planets there are in the Galaxy? Life-supporting or not isn't an issue. Even if LF keeps introducing new planets until Human civilization ends, they won't be able to come up with enough planets to run out if they make an approximate number of the billion variety. I can't believe there is no source for this. Stars! Who cares about those stars? We need to know how many planets there are. With each star contributing with anything from 0 to Lucas knows how many planets, knowing how many stars the Galaxy encompasses is almost worthless. I can understand a reluctance to limit themselves on number of inhabitable planets, but come on!

I guess what I am getting at here is this: Do the actual sources really neglect to make an approximate number on how many planets there are in the Galaxy?DarthMRN 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The reason for this assumption is that the SW Galaxy is similar to our own and these are the parameters involved in determining the number of stars and planets per star in our galaxy. We can't say for sure exactly how many stars and planets there might be, as the Galactic Republic and Empire and following societies had not discovered them all either (see Unknown Regions). Plus there's just more attention drawn to planets and systems that have residents. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Curtis Saxton's page lists the major statistics and their sources, and there doesn't seem to be anything on number of planets (incidentally, we should check the figures on this page, since they don't agree with the ones he lists). However, consider that our solar system only has eight planets, so take that as an order of magnitude estimate (that, assume you're not going to have hundreds of planets in one system; most systems described fit this) and at the very most the number of total planets is about ten times the number of systems, and the number of habitable planets on the same order as the number of systems. - Lord Hydronium 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In particular, Corellia is described as unusual in having five inhabited planets; that seems to be the upper bound for a system, with most described systems having one or two.--Amican 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. See Dilonexa system. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm talking about inhabitable planets, of which Dilonexa only has one.--Amican 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a astronomer, by my knowledges, the estimated number of star that form planets are 40%, and studies show that 100% of planets that can sustain life will have it. If the Star Wars Galaxy respect the our physical laws, the number of sencient species can be estimated properly by the Drake equation. Galdaran 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm going to add to the list under Government and Politics sometime this week; if there's a reason for the various other small and older governments to be left out, someone please let me know before then.

--Amican 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OOU referenceEdit

Why is there a reference to the Milky Way in the introduction?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Modi vs CartographerEdit

Can someone with a particular interest in the subject of galactic cartography make an educated guess of which of these fan mappers have the most complete and accurate Galaxy map? DarthMRN 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete MapEdit

Is there any actually completed map of The Galaxy? If not, is there ever going to be one?

If you meen a map showing all the billions of fictional stars and planets, I highly doubt it: They wouldn't fit on any paper MoffRebus 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The galaxy will never be complete. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget paper. Use an electronic format that can be searched, zoomed, etc. Think of PDF for galatic maps. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What about one that shows the Chiss Ascendancy? --School of Thrawn 101 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Honestly, how many planets do you think are known within the Ascendancy? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming that your answer is "No, there is not a map showing the Chiss Ascendancy." --School of Thrawn 101 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some new ones could be added for "exploration in a future book." Will (Talk - contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There may be a Galactic Atlas to be released but as stated earlier, it cannot fit all within its pages. There is no completeness and the Chiss Ascendancy is one region that is largely unknown, and perhaps for good reason. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I found a great map with any planet that you whould want to look up. It even has Shili that I was trying to find. image shack dot U S )/img387/2741/gmapnew2wc.jpg --User:Axx1000 00:50, 1 January 2009

Galactic populationEdit

ON the site I had read that the population of the galaxy was ~ 100 a another source (the bookDark Empire) mentionne the same number.

Corellian SystemEdit

On the maps, why are the planets of the Corellian System distant from each other? Are these the original positions (before movement with centerpoint station)? Or are the maps not-to-scale-are-you-nuts-man-what-do-you-dream-of-at-night?--TeakHoken91.7.47.136 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy filled with airEdit

Is the Star Wars galaxy filled with air? This would solve many of the big mysteries:

  • Sound in Space
  • Explosions in Space
  • Space Slugs and Mynocks
  • Walking around on asteroids (Seen in TESB)
  • Starships have to thrust out permanently. (Due to aerodynamic resistance)

Maybe it is a very low concentration, not enough for a human, but enough to create these effects.--TeakHoken91.7.47.136 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Space slugs and mynocks don't breath oxygen and Han, Leia, and Chewie were walking around inside the slug with maskes anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You need more than a mere mask to "breath" a vacuum. Besides, inside an asteroid, you would be lucky to find more than .005G. In such gravity, my Mom could throw a baseball outside the body's Hill sphere – and do so with a bad rotator cuff. By the time you get to .001G, you might even be able to JUMP outside that Hill shere. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's possible the environment of the slug's stomach created enough artificial gravity and atmosphere to keep them on the floor and alive. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And why on the floor and not on the ceiling? If you have gravity-producing walls all around you then there is no main direction of gravity. So its Zero-G. But anyway, I see that this is not an argument for an air filled galaxy. But what about sound and explosions in space and starships in need of permanent thrust?--TeakHoken91.7.35.196 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it WAS the ceiling. Piequals3 11:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds in space have been explained by the usage of Aural sensors. DarthMRN 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I bet you they're going to fill in all the gaps with the Episode V version of the Visual Guides. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I found another indication for an air-filled galaxy: Void-7 seismic charge.--TeakHoken91.7.44.3 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • On the asteroid subject, the asteroid the Falcon flew into was said to be "one of the bigger ones", so it could produce weak gravity and therefore hold a thin atmosphere in place.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 11:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a film, for crying out loud. You could also point out the fact that people can project electricity from their hands, have glowsticks that can cut through anything, and space stations that can blow up a planet with one shot. Unit 8311 12:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And what speaks against my theory? Maybe it's a film - with an air-filled galaxy.--TeakHoken91.7.27.229 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The explosions in space could be a result of the oxygen from inside the ships. That would also explain why large ships such as Star Destroyers burn longer tha fighters. The reason you may be hearing sound from the explosions is because it's a movie and it has to sound cool. From a canonical viewpoint, people in the galaxy may not hear the explosions unless they are on the radio frequencies. The space slugs and mynocks may not breath oxygen, and the reason space ships may have to thrust out permanently may be a way of countering some sort of technology that allows ships to stop in the middle of space. Also the engines on the ships may not thrusting at all and just turned on in case they need too. Now what speaks against your theory? The fact that ships are encased off from the vacuum of space. There would be no need for windows, etc, on ships because we already know Star Wars technology has the capability to create artificial gravity. Certain missions in games like KOTOR 2 feature space suits. Also there is no possible explanation for how so much oxygen could be distributed throughout the galaxy. And more importantly George Lucas, or a representative from LucasArts has never declared that the galaxy is covered with oxygen. --Alkaig

Pictures from all era's, and more informationEdit

Don't you think that we should post as many pictures possible for the Star Wars Galaxy that holds all this other stuff? And also some more detailed information of the planets, sectors, systems....What do you think? -Z.T.

P.S. I mean like all the planets ever mentioned in a canon sources, all put on one big map. I wasn't referring to the billions of stars and all the planets there, just the known ones...

Supershadow linkEdit

For all our talk about "Why we hate Supershadow," why is there a link to his website at the bottom of the page?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Insider" mapEdit

The star wars insider map is not good. Talus & Tralus, Selonia, Corellia, which are all in the Corellian System, are several parsecs away from each other. Sacorria is there 2 times with a different image! Kashyyk and Trandosha are close together, but should too be in one system, thus in the same point. I think they should look like Talus & Tralus or Kiffex & Kiffu, Mrlsst and Fondor.--TeakHoken91.7.27.229 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vossk459 12:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC) There is a planet called lego in The New Essential Chronology map. Is this a planet of Lego?

  • It's Iego. -- SFH 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The galaxy as seen in ESB, revisitedEdit

This debate has been bothering me for some time, as I'm sure it has many of you. To answer the most recent post, yes, Of Possible Futures: The Tale of Zuckuss and 4-LOM does state that the Rebel fleet regrouped at a point far beyond the galactic equatorial plane, outside the galaxy, a trip of some 2 days from the Hoth system (hell, it even names the coordinates!), which is explained more in depth in the Rebel rendezvous point page. For my money, that's what you're seeing in the movie, that is the "Star Wars" galaxy, if not some other galaxy. Now, as for the changes I'm making to the BTS section, the Falcon does not fly "into" this object as the section currently states. The ship clearly flies away from the object, off screen, so I'm changing that. Also, according to the Audio Commentary feature on the ESB DVD, the film's director Irvin Kershner does indeed refer to this object as "a galaxy," so I'm including that as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's been clearly said that that image is a galaxy by Leland Chee, as well. jSarek 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Two rantsEdit

1. Aren't the images, especially their captions (mentioning NEC etc) oou? Should they be moved in a BtS section?
2. Doesn't the history section require some retouch? MoffRebus 09:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Name of the galaxyEdit

If people have already named all kinds of these other planets etc., wouldn't the galaxy be named as well?--Padawananimator 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently not. --Imperialles 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well it would (ours is named 'Milky Way' in English), but we the readers aren't supposed to know everything the Star Wars characters know MoffRebus 18:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • From the article about the Children of the Green Planet, E.T.'s people, it says THIS about the expedition and the galaxies ""It is to be noted that Senator Grebleips sent an expedition to another galaxy. This may have been the Milky Way galaxy. E.T. is quoted as being 3 million light years from home: the Milky Way galaxy is only 100,000 light years wide and its closest neighbor (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away, so his home planet (the Green Planet) is so far away that it has to be in another galaxy. The Triangulum galaxy could be a potential candidate."" It is possible that the Star Wars Galaxy is just an alternate version of the real-life galaxy known as the Triangulum Galaxy. --Ashron Ket 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy MapEdit

Does a map exist (either Wikia of external source) that is higher resolution? This map is undoubtedly too low resolution to zoom in on. Thanks! Kgrimes2 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the maps of the article are of adequately high analysis. You can have a look at the external links too. There are even several unofficial maps. I recently discovered which is quite rich. MoffRebus 12:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Kgrimes2 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Apparently, the galaxy was formed around 10,000,000,000 BBY. It says it on [2].

Galactic Population vs. Inhabited planetsEdit

I noticed an odd numerical incongruity in the essential atlas. I claims that the Empire represented "Approximately 100 quadrillion beings" with this obviously intended to be equivalent to the population of the known galaxy at that time (~0ABY). However, only 69 million worlds were represented by the Empire, and of these only 1.75 million had full membership.

This creates an odd issue because, if you take 100 quadrillion (10^17) sentient beings and divide them into 2 million worlds (assuming for simplicities sake that the worlds below the population requirements would be some modest fraction of those with fully representation, this could be a wide range, but is not likely to change things by more than a factor of 1), you end up with a arithmetic mean world population of 50 Billion people. Now, since the median planetary population would seem to be much lower than this number (because influential worlds such as Kuat or Naboo have populations not even a tenth of that), that means somehow its being made up by some vast number of big, super-populous planets. 100 quadrillion people is enough to fill 100000 Coruscants after all.

Anyone have a good explanation for this numbers issue? Even if you throw the full 70 million Imperial worlds into the total, that gives an arithmetic mean of 1.4 Billion. This seems to make more sense, but that would mean that a great many of the 'full member worlds' of the Empire have considerably smaller populations than those that don't qualify. Perhaps settlement politics explains this, but I never quite got the impression that the Outer Rim was so populous. Mechalich 05:53, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the official atlas, only twentyfive percent of the galaxy has been charted.

On the Astrophysical Concerns page of Star Wars Technical Commentaries, it cites Tales of the Bounty Hunters as the source for the 20 million intelligent species number, and The STAR WARS Roleplaying Game Second Edition [p.126] as the source for the "total population of 100 quadrillion sapient beings".

If "Responsible for the affairs of more than 100 quadrillion beings" is intended to cover even those worlds that "do not meet the population requirements for Imperial representation"- that is, the Empire governs them, even though they get no say, than that expands the number of worlds available to the "nearly a billion" given on page (x) of the introduction to The Essential Atlas. --Hamish 16:28, September 16, 2011 (UTC)


uhm, shouldnt the appearances section say "virtually all publications" or something similar since almost all stories/movies/novels/comics/games take place within the galaxy?

Inactive user

This user has been inactive for 12 months or more, and has lost their user page privileges. If you are the user in question, simply undo the last edit to this page when you return to normal article editing activity.

Last article edit: September 18, 2011 (contribs)

04:43, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Was the galaxy DESTROYED?!Edit

The article always says the galaxy was x, the galaxy was y, and so on. Shouldn't it be the galaxy IS x, it is y, and so on? Otherwise the galaxy might as well have been destroyed, considering everything was, was, was, and nothing is. I think the past-tense of the article implies the galaxy's destruction. Anyone else with me? 73h1337n00b 01:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • No. It's past-tense because of the events of Star Wars taking place "a long, long time ago". IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's like saying that Europe WAS a continent on a wiki about ancient Greece. Everything that happened in ancient Greece happened "a long, long time ago". Yet even after these events happened, Europe still exists. Never mind the fact people are still living in Europe so it has to still exist. There's probably still billions of people still living in the galaxy, and yet you say it WAS as opposed to IS? I can see using past tense on characters, wildlife, landforms, and planets. Maybe even on stars. But not a whole galaxy. It's not like someone just said a few million years ago, "OK, everything's done" and hit the switch to vaporize the galaxy. 73h1337n00b 02:15, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem is, it's long been decided to write all Wookieepedia articles which aren't on real-world subjects from an "in-universe" perspective. For most in-universe articles, past tense is an obvious choice. For articles like this one, you could write in a mixture of past and present tense, but to do that you'd have to write from the perspective of an observer at some arbitrary point late in the timeline, thus drawing a clear line between "past" and "present". It's not obvious how late in the timeline to place that point. Without picking a particular point in time, the easiest thing to do in order to keep the articles stylistically consistent is to write everything in past tense. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:18, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe a few million years after the Battle of Yavin? 73h1337n00b 03:42, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • I also think that past tense is overused in articles about "eternal" astronomical bodies such as galaxies, nebulae; unless of course they are known to have been destroyed. I am with you on that, but I would not bother with changing the rules of the manual of style. MoffRebusMy Talk 14:51, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

publication history of galaxy mapsEdit

I think that the Behind the scenes should include a history of the published maps of the galaxy and how they were evolved. Eg. which was the first source to publish an official map of the Galaxy and how it has been evolved until the New Essential Atlas, which errors were corrected etc. A page discussing official maps is here but there are no details about the background behind each map. Any fan who has been a collector of such things should know better MoffRebusMy Talk 22:31, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I would assume that, if you can find the info and source it, then it would be fine to add to the article. Master Fredcerique Begun the Clone Wars has † 22:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yea but I have never been a SW collector or buyer of the novels; someone who has been, could help. MoffRebusMy Talk 22:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • I have The Essential Atlas and the NJO series, which have maps of the galaxy in them. I could add something about them. MasterFred (Whatever) † 06:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Satellite Galaxies.Edit

All real-world galaxies have satellite galaxies, yet there is no mention of it here. ¿Is this an oversight, or a reflection that it’s not specifically mentioned in the Star Wars universe? If it’s the former it should be corrected; If the later, perhaps it should be researched. (It was implied, though never clearly stated, that the Chiss were from the satellite galaxy.) ¡THANX! 21:08, March 7, 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Close enough. The Chiss are from the mysterious unknown regions. MoffRebusMy Talk 05:48, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
No, “close enough” never is. If it says “Unknown regions” and I missed it, well then that’s another matter; Either way, they are now mentioned (“metal poor stars”) so the issue is resolved. 03:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Nameless Galaxy update Edit

There was a paragraph about the servers of Galaxies as part of the discussion for the name of "The Galaxy." I felt like this had nothing at all to do with the Star Wars Galaxy itself because those were just servers, not actual parallel galaxies. 17:02, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

BTS: Geography parallels?Edit

I just need to ask if we even need this section? Unsourced and seemingly OR. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:04, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

  • All I did was correct the spelling, though I have to wonder the need for it, too. It seems just... unnecessary. I'd go ahead and just remove that whole bit, but I'm sure someone would yell at me. Not sure who, but someone will. :P Trak Nar Ramble on 08:06, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, the "Location" BTS section (part of which was the subject of a prolonged discussion on this page some time ago, wherein none of the participants questioned the material's appropriateness) was removed as Original Research, but the "Geography parallels" section remains. To my eyes, the "Geography parallels" section is entirely speculative, whereas there was some useful information in "Location" (alongside a bunch of speculation). Asithol (talk) 19:05, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
      • In the absence of strong (or any) opinion, I've reorganized "Behind the scenes," putting it in a more logical order, removing the entirely interpretive "Geography Parallels" section, and restoring noteworthy information from the previously axed "Location" section. However, I am not sure how to source some of this information: it is significant that no source has ever specified a name for the galaxy, or explained its uncanny similarities to ours, but I know of no good way to cite a reference to information absent across all sources. Asithol (talk) 07:23, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

edit the information about "100 quadrillion life forms" Edit

Not all of those life forms would be sapient, ie (like human beings that can think and be wise and can make decisions). Maybe U should add that to the article, I guess. I might edit the article to include that.

  • You may be BOLD in wanting to improve articles. However, "life forms" does not imply that all of the species invoked are sentient, as you seem to think. It merely states that there were that many different forms of life. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 03:38, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

By forms of life, do you mean 100 quadrillion species, or 100 quadrillion living beings overall. I will edit it to either one of them, but what one is accurate?

  • "Forms of life" means "species." NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:44, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

I will edit it to mention and include 100 quadrillion "species", instead of "life forms". If U have any objections to that, feel free to change my edits.

  • I think it should be switched back to "beings" as stated in the Atlas, lifeforms doesn't imply sentience to me at least. Also I asked about this on the TFN board recently, with regards to how much of the Galaxy that that population number covers, Jason Fry himself provided a link to his endnotes. [3]. Its 100 quadrillion plus for only the 70 million systems of the Empire, not the whole Galaxy.--Darthscott3457 (talk) 00:26, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+