Talk: Timeline of galactic history/Legends

Timeline Problems

Quite honestly, this timeline is terrible. I'm not trying to be mean or to undermine the effort that went into making it, but I've seen a lot of well-done timelines for both real life history and fictional universes, and this one doesn't hold up against those standards. I'd try to improve it myself, but I honestly don't know enough about the SW universe. I do have a few suggestions though.

First, this timeline should deal with all the events that've had a major impact on galactic history, and only with those. Right now, it looks more like a summary of different SW stories, even ones that are rather irrelevant in-universe. For example, the dissolution of the Senate may have only been mentioned in A New Hope, but because of the enormous impact it had on the Galaxy, it deserves to be on here more than the details of Han Solo's career as a small-scale smuggler, even if the latter is more important to the actual movie's plot. Why is Luke catching a case of Tatooine dust fever even the slightest bit notable?

Secondly, just because the publishing companies classify their books into different time periods doesn't mean you have to use those on the same lines as the different segments of the timeline. From a historical perspective, it looks exceedingly silly that the millions of years prior to 1,000 BBY is lumped together into one "era", while there are three separate "eras" within the 40 years following the Death Star's destruction!

Finally, there are a lot of places where the timeline just isn't clear, or uses wording that seems more appropriate for an out-of-universe description of a story. The whole section on the Legacy era is a great example, parts of it just look like they were copied and pasted from an advertisement.

Again, I'm not trying to berate anyone. I hope my suggestions have helped give an idea on how the quality of this article may be improved. 199.79.170.163 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's good constructive criticism. I'll see if I can make a few changes. --Kessel 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I especially agree with the segments of the time periods. I don't mind there are four periods specified in ABY, though that covers only about 130 or so years, since an awful lot of important events do happen in those times, but there are very few differentiating periods or segments BBY, which covers all of Star Wars lore back to the formation of the Republic. Especially the "Old Republic" heading covers a lot of time and a lot of events, and it's annoying scrolling down the timeline if you're looking for the times of Naga Sadow, Exar Kun or Revan. You could let "Old Republic" being where it is now and then add "Great Hyperspace War" for Sadow's age, "Great Sith War" for Exar Kun's time, and "Knights of the Old Republic age" (or something like that) to cover the times of the KotOR video games and the comic book (which precedes the games chronologically). I'd even put in a "Hundred Years Darkness" heading around 7000 BBY because it's a significant part of Star Wars lore even if we've never heard about it in that much detail. Jediphile 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to have a timeline of galactic events, covering the most important resounding galactic events to be noted in the anals of history, which would be less detailed but had all the appropriate time periods and primary events. And also have several smaller timelines covering each of the specific periods containing a more detailed account of each period. In the way we may discuss the Wars of the history of the world in general, but of course would by no means attempt to analyze every battle of each of each of those wars by any means in a single discussion. user:AAAndrieu

On another note it may be wise to rather than having simply a single timeline involving all events of consequense having multiple timelines of categorical classification. One might be a Political timeline, the next technological, another for military, etc... user:AAAndrieu

Timeline

Timeline section would probably be better represented using the vertical EasyTimeline. I haven't done a timeline like this before, but I'm willing to check it out when I get a chance. WhiteBoy 04:09, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) 75.181.69.169 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 137 ABY!!!!!!! I must KNOW! -Your worst enemy (he he)75.181.69.169 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful Links

I'm going to post links that might be helpful for integration into this article: [1] --SparqMan 06:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Future of this article

What's going to happen to this article now that we're making individual articles for each year? – Aidje _talk 20:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• This will remain, but it will be less cluttered if we move alot from it to those individual pages. Then we can link to those years from the main timeline, and the timeline will serve to hold everything together. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But listing years on a timeline and linking to them isn't a very helpful timeline. A timeline needs to have the content that is on those pages to be useful. --SparqMan 14:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This timeline can be the basic timeline covering the most important parts of the movies and the EU that is too distant to link together (i.e. 3,000,000 BBY). Then each year can cover Events, Battles, Births, and Deaths in greater detail. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be done from a more scientific method of categorization and listing that a narrative on like the method I list below;

• Each millennium would be listed as bullet points on the timeline. If you click on one of the millennia, you would be taken to a page with a timeline of each century listed as bullet points, and below the timeline listed would be the major events of that millennium.
• If you clicked on one of the centuries it would take you to a timeline of the decades in that century and the major points of that century.
• If you click on a decade, you would be taken to a page listing a timeline of the years in that decade, and the few biggest plot points from that decade below.
• If you clicked on year, you'd get a page for that year with all of the canon events that took place that year by date, with unknown exact dates getting a listing below the known dates. JJSP (talk) 19:57, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Big Bang time

If the Big Bang is 13.7 Billion years ago from modern Earth time; and Star Wars takes place a long time ago, wouldn't it be less than 13.7 billion years before the Battle of Yavin? 162.84.120.221 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• A long time ago can still be pretty small by cosmic standards. Even if SW was set millions of years in the past, before human existence on Earth, it still wouldn't change a blip for the 13.7 billion years estimate.
  • I don't know what source the big bang date is coming from that is currently up but the Essential Atlas gives 13 billion years as the age of the Galaxy.--Darthscott3457 17:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

0 BBY or 0 ABY?

The official Galaxy Map has the following comment near Alderaan: "Planet destroyed in 0 ABY". This site, however, uses 0 BBY everywhere... - Sikon

• Well, it was destroyed before the Battle of Yavin, so 0 BBY it is. --Imp 11:03, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That is strange indeed. Obviously an error on the map. --SparqMan 12:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So if we refer to this year, we use either BBY or ABY depending on whether the event occured before or after the battle itself? - Sikon 12:16, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Its a weird situation. But you can assume that 1 ABY is exactly 1 year after the battle and the same for before it. But I wouldn't be changing anything. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:14, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That brings up another interesting issue. By using BBY/ABY rather than an IU time unit, like the Great Resynchronization, we cause some trouble with dates as it is unlikely that the 10-month standard year matches closely to when the Battle of Yavin took place. --SparqMan 15:04, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In fact, such system would eliminate a Year 0, because in Riffsyphon1024's scheme 1 ABY would immediately follow 1 BBY. (Or there would be two Years 0, with 0 BBY immediately preceding 0 ABY.) Currently, there seems to be only one Year 0 - 0 ABY redirects to 0 BBY. And if the standard year lasts 10 Earth months, it brings even more questions... questions asking what years a particular dating system refers to. For example, can we assume that a certain person was born in X+Y BBY if the person was Y years old in X BBY? - Sikon 15:29, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I only created that redirect because 0 BBY and 0 ABY seemed to be being used interchangeably (at least on this wiki). I agree that it seems this system should not have any year 0 (or it should have two of them). By the way, Sparq: BBY/ABY is an IU time scale; it was set in 25 ABY, no? – Aidje _talk 04:30, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yea, we OOU people didn't "create" it. The New Republic did. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:41, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • @Aidje: I was unaware of that. Was it mentioned in one of the early NJO books? If so, is it safe to assume they merely changed the years so that months in the BGR/AGR correspond directly to the BBY/ABY system? --SparqMan 21:07, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I haven't actually seen any of this information first hand; all I know on this subject is what I've seen here. I would assume that the months were not changed, but that is just an assumption. I think it's a safe assumption, but I'm not really sure. – Aidje _talk 16:28, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Well if someone could check that and post it, I would be much obliged. If it isn't IU, it seems awful silly for us to do everything else in IU with an OOU time unit. --SparqMan 16:37, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • It's from The Essential Chronology, which even discusses it's use as an IU unit on pg. xiii: "We have chosen to mark the years in this document with the emerging standard, one that establishes the true significance of the Empire's decline and the Rebellion's unstoppable triumph. We have taken as our calendar 'zero point' the date of the Battle of Yavin, the destruction of the first Death Star, and the first overwhelming victory of the Rebel Alliance. We see this as the primary beginning of our time and way of life. Thus, events that precede the historic Battle of Yavin are indicated B.B.Y., while those occurring after are A.B.Y. Future generations will recognize these years as the genesis of a golden age for the galaxy." jSarek 03:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • In an ideal setting, it would be nice if the GR-based system eventually fell into common usage, some lofty day in the future. The fact that the BBY/ABY system was retconned into being used in the fictional world is just positively disgusting to me, and just strikes me as hideously lazy... Why can't we have nice things?--Spanky The Dolphin 03:10, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
            • Yeah, a bit lazy, but significantly easier to understand for the majority of fans. Although if you think about it, the use of AD/BC in our own dating system is equally ridiculous. --SparqMan 03:32, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
              • I frankly don't see how our BC/AD (or BCE/CE) dating system is "equally ridiculous," or frankly even comparible to this lazy retroactively internal BBY/ABY concept. Anyway, that came from The Essential Chronology, right? If so, then all I can say is that thank God that capital moron KJA isn't on Lucasfilm's payroll anymore. I wish I could say that I'm curious to see what will be done with the new EC coming out this year, but frankly I'm not, since Del Rey doesn't seem to be anywhere near the standard that DK is with their SW reference literature. Bet it's just another ugly unrevised subpar rehash like all the others have been.--Spanky The Dolphin 03:44, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
                • It's not lazy, it's marketing. For the rather fannish Adventure Journals and HNN, the Great ReSynch dates were fine, but for a big work aimed at getting new readers caught up in the EU, that system is worthless. I frankly hope to see the BBY/ABY system see a lot more usage, as it's just as sensible IU as the arbitrary date used for the ReSynch, and more comprehensible OOU for fans, new and old alike. jSarek 03:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
                • It's equally ridiculous because it is also a retroactively instituted concept. No one was walking around in 1 AD saying, "Man, I'm glad it's one year after Christ's birth. Woowee!" What I wonder is why they would choose the Battle of Yavin over the Battle of Endor. I imagine those who suffered under Empire were most excited about the death of the Emperor and Vader than the destruction of the first Death Star. Either way, it likely that there are a good number of commonly used calendars in the GFFA, which must make chaos for a datebook. =)--SparqMan 04:22, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
                  • Wasn't that the idea behind the Great ReSynch ;) But anyways, I imagine that the Rebels probably started colliqually using the terms ABY & BBY some time before Endor, and it just stuck and became officially recognised. --beeurd 14:16, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New Calander

Better we move the information on Calander in this page to a new page Galactic Standard Calander User:Srini

I think if we make a new calendar it should be easily referencable under the term "timeline" in order to make it easy to find. User:AAAndrieu

Suggestions for Clarification

There are a few points on here that I think could be worded better.

• "3956 BBY: The Jedi Civil War concludes with the redemption of Revan, the death of Malak, and the destruction of the Star Forge. (Alternativly, it ends with Revan destroying Malak and reclaiming the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith. The Star Forge is later destroyed by the Jedi when Revan sets out to conquer the remnants of the old Sith Empire.)"

This feels like an OOU point of view to me. Is one of the KOTOR outcomes the officially accepted view, or do the both have equal validity? If it's the latter, perhaps we could tweak this slightly to make in an IU perspective? Something like "The Jedi Civil War concludes, though the exact events surrounding this period remained cloudy. Some say that Malak was killed by a force of Jedi, while others claim he was destroyed by his former mentor Revan. Many claim that Revan was slain, though some believe he was redeemed and turned back to the light side of the Force, and still others believe he left to the far reaches of space to conquer (or destroy) the remnants of the old Sith Empire. The Star Forge is also destroyed.

• The whole "alternatively" bit should be removed since LFL has confirmed that the lightside ending is the canonical one.QuentinGeorge 06:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• "3,951 BBY: .. a new Jedi Order is built."

This is not to be confused with the New Jedi Order? Is there a better way to distinguish the order established in 3,951 BBY and the one established in 25-30 ABY? Perhaps in 3,951 we could say "a new Jedi order lead by X"? --Culix 02:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, we don't know this "X". From what we know, it may be Atris, Bastila Shan or any of the Jedi Exile's followers. - Sikon [Talk] 04:11, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • There'd I'd instead say that "The Jedi Order is rebuilt by the Lost Jedi. QuentinGeorge 06:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang date?!

If the Big Bang indeed occurred only 7,5 billion years BBY, then the SW events took place billions of years before now. For some reason, I presumed they occurred at the most thousands of years ago. What's the source for the Big Bang date? - Sikon [Talk] 06:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."Xilentshadow900 10:30, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but I'd still like to have a reference to the source. - Sikon [Talk] 13:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • "NOTE: Various sources, including the Essential Guide to Alien Species tell us that this event takes place at 5,000,000,000 BSW4, but since the formation of the Yavin system is listed in the Star Wars Encyclopedia an entire 2.5 billion years before that date, I am forced to simply use the Yavin date with a “+” for the creation moment, seeing as how it isn’t logical for the Yavin system to form and then have the Big Bang take place, as LFL would seem to be suggesting in their editorial slip-up." - That's from Star Wars Timeline Gold, talking about the date of the big bang. However, looking at The Essential Guide to Alien Species, it only says that the 5 billion BBY date is the date of the formation of the Galaxy, not the actual universe. I don't know what other sources cite a big bang date. -LtNOWIS 22:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Well assuming the Big Bang from us took place 13.7 billion years ago, and the galaxy states theirs as 7.5 billion, then you could extrapolate a difference of 6.2 billion years. Interesting. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:07, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Accounting for the fact that the Galactic Standard Year is 3 days longer than ours, it would actually make the Big Bang 7,561,643,836 of our years BSW4, making a time difference of 6,138,356,164 Earth years (if sleep deprivation hasn't made me mess up the numbers). LordSander 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh... I'm speechless... Do you really think that the date 7,500,000,000 BBY is precise? Down to the last year? It's an approximate date. If we chose (say) 25,000 BBY, the foundation of the Republic (also an approximate date), it would still be 7,500,000,000 BRF. - Sikon [Talk] 05:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been approximated 13.5billion BBY by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dates_in_Star_Wars User:Vexed123

Present Day

I added the following:

- *c. ~6,900,000,000 ABY - Present Day - **Based on current estimates for the age of the universe, and the date stated for the Big Bang. - **Assumes that the star wars galaxy is in the same universe as our own.

to the end of the timeline, and it was removed. I would appreciate an explanation of why this is a bad addition?

• I don't know, but I think this is because of the OOU information. It would be better without the "assumes" clause, since Earth is located in the same universe, only in a different galaxy. - Sikon [Talk] 04:27, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I think it should be removed. The source isn't exactly accurate, nor very clear. --Master Starkeiller 13:00, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Well, can't we make a range to within 2.5 billion years, or something like that? I think this would be an interesting addition.

Dark Nest

Isn't it in the Legacy era? (I think the current era division is lame and marketing-driven, but still.) - Sikon [Talk] 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's in the NJO era, apparently. --Imp 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mandalorian Wars

According to Master Dorak the Mandalorian Wars started seven years before the events of Knights of the Old Republic (3956 BBY) which would make the date 3963 NOT 3965 BBY. In fact, the timeline is doubly wrong because Dorak said that the Mandalorians started invading worlds outside the Republic 20 years before (ie. 20 years before 3956) which means the true date for that event would be 3976 NOT 3983 BBY. I thought I better get some feedback before I change anything... Thoughts?--Sentry 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References:

• The Mandalorians invaded worlds on the Outer Rim as you state, yes, but that does not automatically mean history will officially note that as the beginning of the Mandalorian Wars. For example, the armies of Nazi Germany marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938, but WW2 is generally not held to have begun until Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. A similar perspective could apply here, because with those worlds being outside the Republic, at what point does it stop being "skirmishes on the Outer Rim" and become a war instead? Jediphile 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exile disappears

• 3950 BBY

         o The Jedi Exile, along with T3-M4, disappears into the Unknown Regions to find Revan.

Unless it's in the NEC, it should be speedily deleted as obvious fanon in the generally-obscure-and-nobody-knows-what-the-heck-happened-right-after-K2 KOTOR era. - Sikon [Talk] 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Celestials

Do we have any info on the dates of the Fizz, Celestials, Starfish people or the Gree?

• Check out Gree (planet), Vuffi Raa and Woteba Jaywin 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article get's voted in for the improvement drive...

• Just in case this article gets voted in for the improvement drive, I would like to make a suggestion, if I may. My suggestion is to focus on one era at a time, for the sake of efficiency. Perhaps we could start with the Pre-Republic Era. When it's generally agreed that this section is sufficient, we could then move on to the Old Republic Era, and so forth. Comments? Jaywin 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Format

I would recommend that we devise a proper format for this timeline. I would suggest that we remove all excess verbage and simply stick to dating major events rather than trying to explain them... Comments?--Sentry 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Great suggestions! I agree that devising a proper format is important. I also agree that we should keep the verbage to a minimum. But personally I like the idea of including minor events as well. First, I think it's pretty interesting to see "the big picture" of the Star Wars universe on one page. Also, having a relatively exhautive timeline on one page can give editors the opportunity to use this page as a starting point to efficiently fact check a vast amount of info on Wookiepedia. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several layout issues that should be resolved at some point:

Should any events with conjectural dates be allowed? If so, how should they be presented?

Personally, I think that only confirmed events with concrete, confirmed dates should be included on the timeline.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that we can break down dates in 3 ways. (1)You can have precise dates that are established. Obviously, we can all agree on those dates. (2) There are what I would call "circa" dates...that is, dates that have been established around a general time, (e.g., the founding of the Republic was c. 25,000 BBY). I suspect there wouldn't be much, if any, disagreement about those kinds of dates, either. (3) Then there are what you labelled as "conjectural" dates. I suspect what you mean by this are dates that are approximated, for example through inference. Now this last kind of dating would most certainly be the most debatable. Personally, I don't neccessarily have a problem with the idea in principle. However, if we do use thse kinds of dates, they should be debated and clearly labelled with something like "approximate dates" or "conjecture based on [fill in the blank]," or something to that effect. To elaborate on a point I made in the previous section, carefully conjectured dates that are clearly labelled as such can add to the "big picture" of Star Wars. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What entries should be bolded?

I think only major wars should be bold. Those would be the events in the 'Major Galactic Conflicts' sucession.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. I agree that we should make major wars bold. Perhaps major events in general, (e.g., The Founding of the Republic). Of course, I think we can agree that we should create clear criteria for what "major" means. Perhaps we can make established periods bold, as well. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list battles? If so, which ones?

Personally, I don't see the point in adding battles. They are listed in the war articles already, so they just take up space here. The only exception would be battles that did not take place within the time scheme of a major conflict.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, another good point. I agree with labelling battles that did not take place within the time scheme of a major conflict. Perhaps with other battles, we can list them in a more concise way than the way that they are presently listed. For example:

Let's say there's a 3 year conflict with 9 battles, with 3 conflicts per year. We could label the period of the war, (beginning and end), and then say [blank year] battle such and such through battle such and such for each year, or something to that effect. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Another thing we could do when it comes to battles is we could just make links to other lists of battles, like relevant sections at List of battles, Timeline of the Clone Wars, and Timeline of the Galactic Civil War. Jaywin 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think there are some battles worth posting due to their in-universe signifigance. The beginning and end battles of major wars, for example, as well as such shattering battles as Mizra, Coruscant, Endor, etc. Kuralyov 03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. Especially since such events can easily be placed into a short sentence such as: "The Mandalorian Wars come to an end following the Battle of Malachor V."--Sentry 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong or Questionable Dates

• I've been spending a lot of time pulling together a lot of these dates from articles all over Wookiepedia. A lot of these dates were contradictory. A good example was the crash of the Chu'unthor on Dathomir...it had three different dates in three different articles! When I noticed this, I posted the contradiction, and User:Kwenn looked it up, found the correct date, (340 BBY), and corrected the two subject articles that were wrong. I went in to the two "year" articles, (292 BBY and 400 BBY), and corrected those, and corrected the date on the timeline.

My suggestion is that if we run into dates that are incorrect, not only should we fix the timeline, but we should also fix the date in the relevant articles, as well, both subject articles and year articles. Jaywin 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Formation of the Galaxy and Yavin

• What's the source for the date of the creation of the Galaxy and Morasil? Timetales lists it as 5,000,000,000 BBY, citing Episode I: Incredible Locations, SW: Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina, Wizards of the Coast Website and SW: Shield of Lies. It also says Yavin system was formed in 7,500,000 BBY, from The SW Encyclopedia (Page 347) - Kwenn 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Check above I suspect there's some confusion between Yavin being formed 7 1/2 million years BBY and 7 1/2 billion years BBY...all those zeros get confusing, I guess! I don't have any of these sources, so I'm not sure. If your sources are canon, I say adjust the timeline and the year pages. I made the pages for both years and linked them in your above paragraph, just in case you need them. Jaywin 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My only source is Timetales over at TF.N, which is reliable, but is a fan-made timeline using dates from official material. I assume it's all correct, but I'm not 100% sure - Kwenn 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Encloypedia lists Formation of yavin system at 7.5 million BBY User:Vexed123

Darth Traya Discovers the Exile

It is stated in the timeline that Darth Traya discovers the Exile onboard the Ebon Hawk; according to the video game, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, she actually discovers her aboard the Republic capital ship, Harbinger en route to Telos. The Exile is abducted by Darth Traya and spirited away from the Harbinger. User:Mikda Fopal

Aqualish colonization

Where did the entry at 60,000 BBY "The planet Mygeeto is colonized by the Aqualish" originate from? I can't seem to find a source for this. In any case, the date is absurd - the Aqualish didnt have sublight travel until 15000 BBY. I'm deleting it.

Verification needed for the Columi

c. 2,006,200 BBY The Columi first evolve. c. 2,004,200 BBY The Columi take to the trees and begin to develop for arboreal life. c. 2,002,200 BBY The Columi learn to use tools. c. 2,002,000 BBY The Columi, with their newly acquired skill of mining for minerals, begin building tree spanning cities. c. 2,000,000 BBY The Columi achieve interstellar travel.

According to User:Dylax, (on my talk page), this information comes from p. 31 of Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races. ~ Jaywin

I have searched extensively for these dates or ways to derive them and found nothing (amongst others, in the source cited). The 2,000,000 BBY and predating events are most likely fiction and should be removed from the many pages it stands in. The 2,000,000 in particular is in direct contradiction with the stated year for the achievement of interstellar travel, 100,000 BBY, which seems to have a credible source, that I have however not been able to verify yet. --Eledhwen 20:33, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

c. 1,000,000 BBY The Bith undergo a terrible war.

c.999,989 BBY By this time, most sentient species have begun keeping historical records, though they prove indecipherable to modern historians.

This information, and more besides, needs to be verified. - Angel Blue^(Holonet) 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was it renamed?

The word "galactic" is never canonically capitalized, except when it's a part of a proper name where all words are capitalized (like the Galactic Empire). Besides, the title just looks awkward in its current form. - Sikon 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang

> 7,500,000,000 BBY The Big Bang occurs, which leads to the formation of the universe. c. 5,000,000,000 BBY The Star Wars galaxy forms. The first star in the Cularian System, named Morasil, is formed.

From Wikipedia. i'm however unsure of it's acurisy User:Tnu

• Surprise, it is from here. Here, however, it was removed due to there being no known canonical evidence. - Sikon 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose the opening segment of each movie confirms that the SW galaxy exists in our universe, so it would be logical to assume that the big bang occured there too. Unit 8311 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Ace

Hope people don't mind but I edited the placement of Imperial Ace in the Video Game Section. This game can only take place after ESB as it features Admiral Piett. 80.176.158.128 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hapes Consortium

Nice to meet you. I am a person editing a Wookieepedia Japanese edition. I watched Timeline of galactic history and have intended in doubt. Though there is Hapes Consortium in 4,050 BBY, why is it founded in 3,000 BBY newly? DirtyBear 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Report Inconsistences for Revision here

The begining of the GCW is incorrect. On the timeline the events that began he militarized opposition to the empire is listed as occuring in 2BBY when the same events are listed as occuring in 3BBY on the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader page. Additionally in 3BBY "ghost base" is refferenced which link clearly states that the imperial opposition was militarized at the time, even though prior to the events described in AS/DV's page clearly state the rebellion/ imperial opposition of the time was silent and nonmilitarized until that point. user:AAAndrieu

Why is Jabba the Hutt born twice (first 600 BBY and then a few years later but referred to by his full name)? 194.237.103.78 09:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New article, now merged

A similar article to this:

• http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Star_Wars&direction=prev&oldid=2824261

...is up for deletion at wikipedia, so I moved it over here. That article was then merged to this article. Anno1404 11:13, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Bespin

The dates given for Ecclessis Figg's birth, the construction of Cloud City, and the colonization of Bespin in The Knights of the Old Republic sourcebook and used here has to be in error. Two other sources (Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin and Galactic Gazetteer: Hoth and the Greater Javin) place these events in the 5th century BBY.

Shaak Ti

Hello from where that comes that Shaak Ti 59 BBY was born? --May the Force be with you. Shaak Ti ~ Jedi-Rat 03:02, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Formation of the Galaxy

I know that the page for 5,000,000,000 BBY is locked-out, but I think it's a little odd not to include the biggest event of the world in the timeline... --Eledhwen 20:46, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

• If you have any Star Wars source for that year, the page can be opened, but without the source it won't happen. (: –Tm_T ^(Talk) 21:01, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
• Well, I do! The source is The Essential Guide to Alien Species", x.--Eledhwen 16:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
• So, what's up?! The page is still locked.--Eledhwen 01:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ancient events without sources

I suggest that ancient events that do not cite sources (on this page or on any other) should be removed, because they are most likely created by fans and not canon. Examples are: Beggar's Canyon (on it's page, it says it was formed "millenia ago", which would indicate most likely a far posterior formation than 2,000,000 BBY, although no source is cited), underground evolution of the Sullustans (2,000,000 BBY), etc.--Eledhwen 16:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Update

This page needs an update from the later Legacies and Legacy-War! could somebody please do it?

Fate of the Jedi is canon...

Significant events take place in Fate of the Jedi. I hope that you're all waiting a while to make sure that we have a clear understanding of those events. Any other reason for not including them, would be dubious... (- -) 19:28, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

• Just feel free to add any new info yourself. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:30, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Kyle Katarn and the Jedi Knights

What about the Jedi Knight series? Where does that come in?

70.180.184.159 23:58, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Should we make a Canon version of this article?

Should we make a canon version of this article, omitting the material from the EU and adding information from Rebels? I know there is no longer a canon calendar system, but we could describe events in relation to the Battle of Yavin. 209.189.130.72 16:53, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

• We Should 178.117.184.14 18:26, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually... I believe the Aby and Bby system is still being used in canon, because material pertaining to rebels used the system, and rebels is most definitely canon. ralok (talk) 00:25, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • Asked Leland Chee on twitter if ABY and BBY was okay for canon, he basically said yes... kay... ralok (talk) 17:49, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
      • His preferred solution is an out-of-universe timeline, which you can see here. It seems pretty clear that, at least for now, there's not going to be a BBY/ABY calendar system in canon. It makes sense at this point not to use BBY/ABY, because that's always been an in-universe designation. I think once we have a more definitive timeline of when events take place (for the majority of canon stories - i.e. episodes of The Clone Wars - we don't know what year they take place in), we could create an out-of-universe dating system for canon pages like "BSW4" and "ASW4" ("SW4" being "Star Wars 4"). - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 18:02, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Our articles must always be in-universe for in-universe subjects except Behind the scenes material, so we shouldn't be using it unless the stories are actually using it in the story. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:18, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
          • Could the Lothal calendar be used as the in-universe dating system? 134.129.60.199 03:52, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Calendar systems aside, are there any plans to make a version of this timeline that consists only of Canon events? I think that was OP's primary intent. I would try to make one myself, but I don't think I'm best-suited for the task.Tanzeelat (talk) 20:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Atlas Big Bang

When does the Essential Atlas mention the Big Bang? The history of the Galaxy given on page 125 does not mention the wider universe's creation. Arcadia warlic (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Well, it does mention that "the galaxy is an estimated thirteen billion years old," which is about the age of our universe and the age of the earliest galaxies in the universe. There's no direct mention of the "Bing Bang" though. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Feel citing the Atlas for the Big Bang may be a bit misleading, then. Arcadia warlic (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)