This is the talk page for the article "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station."

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.

Kyber Crystal Cannon? Edit

Could the Death Star's Planet Destroyer Cannon be powered by a HUGE Kyber Crystal?

  • I thought that was a very obvious allusion too, but until and unless it's confirmed either in an episode/comic/novel/short story/game, or by one of The Powers That Be, we cannot add it to the article because it would be speculative. Also, please remember to sign your comments by adding four ~ symbols at the end of your comments. Thank you. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 02:44, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that it's for the Death Star, but I agree with DigiFluid in that we don't have official confirmation yet. It's likely that, if this is for the Death Star, we'll get that confirmation in Tarkin. If we do, then the information can be added. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:10, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Tarkin: "Sentinel Base"?Edit

For anyone out there who's read the new Luceno book, does it identify the Death Star itself as "Sentinel Base," or is that just the name of the Imperial base/construction facility overseeing the Death Star itself? I also ask because this may end up prompting an article name change, much though I would rather not. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 14:24, November 5, 2014 (UTC)

From reading Tarkin, I believe that Sentinel Base was the moon that oversaw the construction. It could be that the entire facility was dubbed Sentinel Base, since the Death Star was part of the construction site, but I read it as being the ground base on the moon, since they mentioned an inhospitable environment.- JustPhil (talk) 15:32, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
I just posted on the Del Rey Facebook page asking for clarification, since there's been confusion here about this. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:45, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
According to Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know, the Death Star had multiple codenames during its construction such as Sentinel Base and Ultimate Weapon. Case closed. - Comm. Boots (talk) 21:51, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
Can you quote the exact passage? Because that's not what the Databank entry says: "The Empire initially appointed Vice Admiral Rancit to supervise the network of bases protecting the Death Star, an effort overseen from the remote Sentinel Base." - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:54, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Move to its formal name? Edit

In Last Call at the Zero Angle, it's shown that the Death Star has a formal name, which is "DS-1 platform." Since we did move the Legends article to its formal name "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station"), shouldn't we do the same here? I did ask Jason Fry on Twitter about it, and he confirmed that "DS-1 platform" is indeed the formal codename, the one that would used in official documents. --LelalMekha (talk) 15:09, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

  • Not to parse words too much, but that's not exactly what he said. "That's what I imagined" (which suggests a single author's interpretation) isn't the same thing as "That's the official name." So I wouldn't move this based on that. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 15:14, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Should have seen it coming. Never mind, then. --LelalMekha (talk) 15:21, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

DS-1 Orbital Battle Station Edit

Sooo... apparently, the formal name "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" is back in the game, per the new Visual Guide. Are we going to move this? --Lelal Mekha Old Republic military symbol (Audience Room) 14:16, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

  • I support the move. If it's the proper in-universe name, then it's certainly better than the more informal title it has at the moment. -Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (Talk) 14:35, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

I am strongly against the idea of moving the page name. It's a really bad idea for page ranking. If you search for Death Star on Google right now, here are the top 5 results:

  1. Death Star on Wikipedia
  2. Death Star
  3. Death Star II
  4. DS-1 Orbital Battle Station
  5. Death Star on

It's not bad that we have 3 of the top 5 search results for the topic. However, the fact that there are so many different Death Star related search results for Wookieepedia—keep in mind that Death Star/Legends (the catch-all page for all Death Stars in Legends) and Death Star II/Legends also exist—is likely a contributing factor to why we don't have the top search result. There's no compelling reason, beyond site architecture, that Wookieepedia, with its depth of knowledge, shouldn't be the #1 result for Death Star, especially less than a week after the release of a movie that was all about the Death Star.

If this page is renamed, there's a good chance that it will drop even further in the search results. Of course, you might be thinking "but Death Star will still redirect to the new name, so people can still find it." That is true, but only to an extent. Hardcore fans who are already searching Wookieepedia or know about Wookieepedia can still find it. They'll know to search on Wookieepedia, but a casual fan who just saw the movie and wants to know a little more about the Death Star is going to be relying on Google search results. And ranking = authority, so the fact that the page is written by expert Wookieepedians won't matter if the page is lower in search results.

Wookieepedia needs to make sure it's positioning its pages in a way that best serves the widest possible audience. Is the official name of the Death Star the DS-1 orbital battle station? Sure, and the article can and should reflect that. But the page name should reflect the term that is going to bring the page to the widest possible audience, and that makes sure that both hardcore and casual fans can find it at the top of search results. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:27, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, I don't have a problem with the article being titled "Death Star" as long as the intro starts by using the official designation, and then "Death Star". --Lelal Mekha Old Republic military symbol (Audience Room) 21:43, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
    • Search-wise it'd actually still be better to say something like "The Death Star was the codename of the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station, an armored etc etc." - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:45, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
      • Wookieepedia needs to make sure it's positioning its pages in a way that best serves the widest possible audience. Is the official name of the Death Star the DS-1 orbital battle station? Sure, and the article can and should reflect that. But the page name should reflect the term that is going to bring the page to the widest possible audience, and that makes sure that both hardcore and casual fans can find it at the top of search results. "Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong." By Brandon's rationale, we would move every page to its "most common" title. So Thrawn, Jabba, X-wing, Rebel Alliance, Cassian Andor. These would all be our new page names. Fortunately, Rule 1 of the Naming policy thinks otherwise: If a subject has more than one canon name, use the most formal and accurate version provided in sources (example: Jabba Desilijic Tiure instead of Jabba the Hutt; Mitth'raw'nuruodo instead of Thrawn; Alliance to Restore the Republic instead of Rebel Alliance). Star Wars: Rogue One: The Ultimate Visual Guide and From a Certain Point of View identify the first Death Star as the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station. So, regardless of opinions to the contrary, I will therefore be moving this page in accordance with Rule 1 of the Naming policy. If it's any consolation, Death Star will now exist as a parent page for both battle stations, as our Legends articles have been handling it up till now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:06, February 15, 2018 (UTC)


Regarding the change to 160km - given that Rogue One: Catalyst gives a meridian diameter of "120 km from pole to pole", Rogue One: Mission Files says estimated 120 km, given Starkiller Base is 660 km, and given that the holo of the DS1 next to Starkiller Base looks a lot less than 1/4 the diameter of Starkiller base - I would suggest it's a little premature to change it to 160km just yet. -- 09:46, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

I actually did a measurement of the TFA holograms and Starkiller came out at almost 660 km when using a 120 km Death Star, so yeah, that kinda slipped my mind. I guess I should have looked into it a little more, I don't even remember Catalyst mentioning it (probably because I was listening to the audio version). -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 10:12, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
Pablo said the VFX model was built at 160KM, which is why he chose that number in the Visual Guide. --Tuskin38 (talk) 21:13, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

How many trips down the trench ?? Edit

I read the A NEW HOPE book in the early 80's and saw the movie many times from 1978 - 2015. In the current movie version, Luke only makes one pass through the Deathstar's trench to destroy it. I believe he made three trips in the book (it's been over 30 years since I read it). I thought Luke made two trips in the original theatrical release. He also make two attempts to throw his grappling hook before it caught allowing him to escape the stormtroopers when he was trapped with Leia. In the current movie version, Luke only throws his grappling hook once.

Can anyone verify how many trips Luke made down the deathstar's trench in the original theatrical release and also if I was correct about the two throws of the grappling hook??

do you guys think 160 km is 100 miles, if you get on your internet browser, 160 kilometers is actually 99 miles, i seen this in length in google. but could the width in diameter be different? you guys could correct this if you want to.

do you canon article editors like the new canon for the death stars? i remember length width and height were the better measurements, please change it back to those, because width only will only make it strechted out so far you wont probaly see it as the death star. so make it sound right. i know hidalgo seen it like this, but its not correct.

the death star was changed from spheroid to sphere, because you can only use a sphere with a diameter.