The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

[RogueIce]

What lets you say that there are at least two arms, that there could be even more arms.

Is this again an example for your wishful thinking?

Or is there anything that indicates such a possibility - even if it is not conclusive?

We can see the two spiral arms at the top and bottom? Is that seriously not enough for you?

I do not contest that this image depicts the Star Wars galaxy - although I wonder why this depiction of the Star Wars galaxy

*snip image*

looks so different from that depiction:

*snip*

There's a whole bunch of different ways we draw our own world map, it could be just a different projection for whatever reason. The one Kenobi views looks like a side(ish) profile view, while Amidala is looking at a top-down view. One could be more "detailed" than the other for whatever reason (think the difference between, say, a topographical map with a regular outline map, or Google's Satellite versus regular Map views).

But the main point is that Amidala's map clearly shows a spiral galaxy.

As for your other questions: go learn astronomy?

EDIT: And seriously, your abuse of the

• tag is really annoying.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The image, however, is conclusive. The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy with at least two, possibly more spiral arms.

What lets you say that there are at least two arms, that there could be even more arms.

Is this again an example for your wishful thinking?

Or is there anything that indicates such a possibility - even if it is not conclusive?

You posted the goddamn image. It quite clearly shows two spiral arms, possibly more. It also shows, when it zooms in, that both Tatooine and Geonosis are in an outer part of one of the spiral arms.

Seriously, how are you disputing this?

[Imperial528]

For both Watch-Man's and Eternal Freedom's benefit, I present an annotated image:



Green is possible bar, blue are primary spirals, red are spurs, yellow are anomalous/loose arms. (I do not know if there is a proper word for an arm that doesn't connect or has been drawn back in or some-such.)

[Boeing 757]

So Tatooine and Geonosis are said to be located in the Outer Rim, and lo and behold, they can be found near the periphery of the galactic rim in accordance with that depiction.

And as to why the first profile image of the galaxy in the library looks different from the planar one on Amidala's yacht ...we observe it from the side--that is why.

[Boeing 757]

For both Watch-Man's and Eternal Freedom's benefit, I present an annotated image:



Green is possible bar, blue are primary spirals, red are spurs, yellow are anomalous/loose arms. (I do not know if there is a proper word for an arm that doesn't connect or has been drawn back in or some-such.)

Thanks for doing that. It is hard to discern with the glow emitted around the galactic core in the image, but if I am not mistaken their galaxy could almost pass for a barred spiral.

[Galvatron]

This image might be clearer for the purposes of this thread...

http://i58.tinypic.com/2ihtu89.jpg

[Imperial528]

Here's a version with the higher resolution image as the base:



I used an oval over the core this time since without the blurring there doesn't seem to be a bar there.

[Lord Revan]

so there's 2 main arms, 2 lesser arms (or spurs or what ever is the correct astronomical term) at the very least?

[Eternal_Freedom]

It appears so. I think "spurs" is an acceptable term for pieces of spiral arm detached from the main arms.

[Lord Revan]

Ok The Milky Way is roughly 100 000 light years across, meaning if we assume it it be circle 100 000 light years across it would have an area of roughly 8 000 000 000 ly2 (a bit less actually but the orginal value isn't exact either) now 19% of that is 1 520 000 000 or rougly 1.5 billion ly2 that would give us galaxy rougly 24 000 lightyears across.

So to have lower then ST speeds (and lets be honest it's what this was always about) the SW galaxy cannot be more the 12 000 lightyears across, since it's pretty common is Trek to refer to travel times in days, while travel times of more then 24 hours have not been mentioned or implied in SW and that's generous and implying that days doesn't refer to more then 2, but if assume it refers to a full week (or seven days) you end up with a galaxy of only 3 000 lightyears across.

now Watch-man what is your proof that SW galaxy has the structure it's clearly shown to have while being mere 12 000 lightyears across?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well dwarf spiral galaxies can be that small (indeed they are often categorised as being low-luminosity spirals of 5kpc/15kly diameter). They are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies.

Such galaxies are, in the majority of cases, isolated field galaxies (as in, they are a long long way from any other galaxies) which we know cannot be true for the SW galaxy from the Jedi Archive map/picture showing two other galaxy-type objects relatively close by. These galaxies also have the large majority of their baryonic matter in the form of neutral gaseous hydrogen, rather than in stars. up to 95% of the mass of these galaxies can be attributed to non-baryonic dark matter and there is no known supernova activity in any such galaxy (and we know supernovae are a known event in the SW galaxy).

So then, the idea of the SW galaxy being a dwarf spiral is looking increasingly unlikely.

In addition, we know from Dooku and the Separatist's meeting in AOTC that "10,000 more systems" could join them, but haven't yet. This is implied to be a major boost for the Separatists but not a crippling loss to the Republic - implying it contains many times that number of systems. The idea that the SW galaxy is a particularly small one is very unlikely at this point.

[Lord Revan]

Well dwarf spiral galaxies can be that small (indeed they are often categorised as being low-luminosity spirals of 5kpc/15kly diameter). They are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies.

Such galaxies are, in the majority of cases, isolated field galaxies (as in, they are a long long way from any other galaxies) which we know cannot be true for the SW galaxy from the Jedi Archive map/picture showing two other galaxy-type objects relatively close by. These galaxies also have the large majority of their baryonic matter in the form of neutral gaseous hydrogen, rather than in stars. up to 95% of the mass of these galaxies can be attributed to non-baryonic dark matter and there is no known supernova activity in any such galaxy (and we know supernovae are a known event in the SW galaxy).

So then, the idea of the SW galaxy being a dwarf spiral is looking increasingly unlikely.

In addition, we know from Dooku and the Separatist's meeting in AOTC that "10,000 more systems" could join them, but haven't yet. This is implied to be a major boost for the Separatists but not a crippling loss to the Republic - implying it contains many times that number of systems. The idea that the SW galaxy is a particularly small one is very unlikely at this point.

That's why I'm asking what is his evidence for SW galaxy being as dwarf spiral opposed to an average sized spiral like the Milky Way. I'm not saying it's impossible but his claim needs to more then "I feel like it's this".

[Lord Revan]

Well dwarf spiral galaxies can be that small (indeed they are often categorised as being low-luminosity spirals of 5kpc/15kly diameter). They are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies.

Such galaxies are, in the majority of cases, isolated field galaxies (as in, they are a long long way from any other galaxies) which we know cannot be true for the SW galaxy from the Jedi Archive map/picture showing two other galaxy-type objects relatively close by. These galaxies also have the large majority of their baryonic matter in the form of neutral gaseous hydrogen, rather than in stars. up to 95% of the mass of these galaxies can be attributed to non-baryonic dark matter and there is no known supernova activity in any such galaxy (and we know supernovae are a known event in the SW galaxy).

So then, the idea of the SW galaxy being a dwarf spiral is looking increasingly unlikely.

In addition, we know from Dooku and the Separatist's meeting in AOTC that "10,000 more systems" could join them, but haven't yet. This is implied to be a major boost for the Separatists but not a crippling loss to the Republic - implying it contains many times that number of systems. The idea that the SW galaxy is a particularly small one is very unlikely at this point.

That's why I'm asking what is his evidence for SW galaxy being as dwarf spiral opposed to an average sized spiral like the Milky Way. I'm not saying it's impossible but his claim needs to more then "I feel like it's this".

oh yeah I forgot the galaxy also has to be really, really dense as far as stars go so regular low density dwarf spiral isn't enough.

[Galvatron]

I wonder how many visual depictions of the galaxy can be found in SW:TCW or Rebels. They're canon too.

[Lord Revan]

I wonder how many visual depictions of the galaxy can be found in SW:TCW or Rebels. They're canon too.

can't remember any but I've not seen a good chunk of the Clone Wars series so I cannot say for sure, at least none of the episodes I've seen had any clear visual depictions.

[WATCH-MAN]

• It really is a shame that those participants in this thread with the biggest mouth, Lord Revan, Eternal_Freedom, Boeing 757, Adamskywalker007, were unable to provide any evidence.
  
  It was Mange, who referred to the map in Amidala's yacht in AOTC and it was Galvatron who provided the first link to an image of that scene.
  
  But even with that image, the claims continued. Eternal_Freedom claimed - although we now had an image of that galaxy, that it could have more than two spiral arms. Even if asked, he was unable to provide any evidence. It was Imperial528, who provided an image in which he marked the arms - getting Lord Revan to admit that there are "2 main arms, 2 lesser arms (or spurs or what ever is the correct astronomical term)" and Eternal_Freedom to agree that "spurs" is an acceptable term for pieces of spiral arm detached from the main arms".
  
  After, thanks to the images provided by Imperial528, we know now more about the morphology about the Star Wars galaxy and the next logical question would be, which dimension the Star Wars galaxy has, Lord Revan and Eternal_Freedom started to throw around with claims again - and again providing no evidence for their claims.
  
  So claimed Lord Revan that the Milky Way is roughly 100 000 light years across - although Wikipedia says that it has a diamater of 100–180 kly (31–55 kpc).
  
  Eternal_Freedom admits that there are spiral galaxies with a diameter of less than 12 000 light years do exists. But then he claims that such galaxies are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies. As evidence he refers to Wikipedia. But reading what there is written, one will notice that they do not say that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies but that most low-surface-brightness galaxies are dwarf galaxies. With other words: The Wikipedia article to which Eternal_Freedom referred says nothing about most dwarf galaxies. He simply is too stupid to understand what he is reading.
  
  Wrongly assuming that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies and that such galaxies are mainly isolated field galaxies, found in regions devoid of other galaxies, he concludes that the Star Wars galaxy can't be a dwarf galaxy - or at least that it is looking increasingly unlikely - as the Jedi Archive map shows two other galaxy-type objects relatively close to it.
  
  Ignoring that his assumption is wrong - or that he at least provided no evidence for his claim that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies and are mainly isolated field galaxies, found in regions devoid of other galaxies - he again does not provide evidence for his claim that the Jedi Archive map shows two other galaxy-type objects relatively close to the Star Wars galaxy. Again only a claim - without any evidence.
  
  That's especially bad form of him as I had already quoted Curtis Saxton - who seems to have more knowledge about astrophysics than Eternal_Freedom - saying:
  
  • • • • "Remarkably, two more spiral galaxies appear in the top left and bottom right corners of the image. They may be more distant galaxies that coincidentally lie in the background, or they may be nearer but smaller satellite galaxies that are gravitationally bound to the Galactic Republic. In projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. Therefore the other galaxies must really be located somewhat in front of or behind the main plane of the picture. " [Star Wars - Technical Commentaries - The Galaxy - Jedi Archive Map]
  As it seems, Curtis Saxton can not decide if these galaxies are more distant galaxies or nearer but smaller satellite galaxies. But he explains that in projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. With other words: Curtis Saxton thinks that they can not be as close as it seems on that image.
  
  But Eternal_Freedom claims that - without providing any evidence.
  
  
  
  Ignoring all that bullshit coming from Lord Revan and Eternal_Freedom, the next logical step is to ask which evidence there is for the dimension of this galaxy.
  
  And please consider that an appeal to probability is no evidence and is considered a logical fallacy.
  
  And please consider that I'm looking for evidence regardless where it leads. I'm not claiming that the size of the Star Wars galaxy is small, average or big. Insofar I have not to disprove that a claimed size is wrong. I have not to prove that the Star Wars galaxy is a dwarf galaxy. I do not have to prove that it has an average size. And I do not have to prove that it is a gigantic galaxy.
  
  I'm asking you to provide evidence for its size - any size that is supported by the available evidence.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It really is a shame that those participants in this thread with the biggest mouth, Lord Revan, Eternal_Freedom, Boeing 757, Adamskywalker007, were unable to provide any evidence.

It was Mange, who referred to the map in Amidala's yacht in AOTC and it was Galvatron who provided the first link to an image of that scene.

It's a blink and you miss it image in one film. Yes, I missed it but I haven't watched AOTC in several years before that image came up. I'll also note that you didn't find it either.

But even with that image, the claims continued. Eternal_Freedom claimed - although we now had an image of that galaxy, that it could have more than two spiral arms. Even if asked, he was unable to provide any evidence. It was Imperial528, who provided an image in which he marked the arms - getting Lord Revan to admit that there are "2 main arms, 2 lesser arms (or spurs or what ever is the correct astronomical term)" and Eternal_Freedom to agree that "spurs" is an acceptable term for pieces of spiral arm detached from the main arms".

My god you really are obtuse. You posted a version of the map, which I looked at and concluded "yup, spiral galaxy, at least two arms, possibly more." What more "evidence" should I have given you? Imperial528's diagram was very useful but him adding lines to the screencap is hardly what made it decisive evidence.

Eternal_Freedom admits that there are spiral galaxies with a diameter of less than 12 000 light years do exists. But then he claims that such galaxies are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies. As evidence he refers to Wikipedia. But reading what there is written, one will notice that they do not say that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies but that most low-surface-brightness galaxies are dwarf galaxies. With other words: The Wikipedia article to which Eternal_Freedom referred says nothing about most dwarf galaxies. He simply is too stupid to understand what he is reading.

From the article on dwarf spiral galaxies, with emphasis added by me in bold just to be clear:

A dwarf spiral galaxy is the dwarf version of a spiral galaxy. Dwarf galaxies are characterized as having low luminosities, small diameters (less than 5 kpc), low surface brightnesses, and low hydrogen masses.[1] The galaxies may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.

I included the link to the Low-Surface Brightness Galaxies page for more information, and for evidence of the statement about LSBs and dwarf galaxies having a most of their baryonic mass as neutral hydrogen, and the lack of supernova activity. It should also be abundantly clear that the article in question does talk about dwarf galaxies, so WATCH-MAN is misrepresenting what I have said and what the evidence I have provided says.

Wrongly assuming that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies and that such galaxies are mainly isolated field galaxies, found in regions devoid of other galaxies, he concludes that the Star Wars galaxy can't be a dwarf galaxy - or at least that it is looking increasingly unlikely - as the Jedi Archive map shows two other galaxy-type objects relatively close to it.

Again, quoting from the article on Low Surface Brightness Galaxies, again with emphasis added to show that you are so very utterly wrong:

Most LSBs are dwarf galaxies, and most of their baryonic matter is in the form of neutral gaseous hydrogen, rather than stars. They appear to have over 95% of their mass as non-baryonic dark matter. There appears to be no supernova activity in these galaxies.

Rotation curve measurements indicate an extremely high mass-to-light ratio, meaning that stars and luminous gas contribute only very little to the overall mass balance of an LSB. The centers of LSBs show no large overdensities in stars, unlike e.g. the bulges of normal spiral galaxies. Therefore, they seem to be dark-matter-dominated even in their centers, which makes them excellent laboratories for the study of dark matter.

In comparison to the more well-studied high-surface-brightness galaxies, LSBs are mainly isolated field galaxies, found in regions devoid of other galaxies. In their past, they had fewer tidal interactions or mergers with other galaxies, which could have triggered enhanced star formation. This is an explanation for the small stellar content.

There, the bolded sections should make it clear that the article does indeed say what I said it said, so you are once again misrepresenting what I have said.

Incidentally, the third bolded sentence is further evidence that the SW galaxy cannot be a dwarf spiral galaxy, as it clearly has a denser central bulge (as seen in both the Jedi Archives map and the later map seen on Amidala's yacht).

Ignoring that his assumption is wrong - or that he at least provided no evidence for his claim that most dwarf galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies and are mainly isolated field galaxies, found in regions devoid of other galaxies - he again does not provide evidence for his claim that the Jedi Archive map shows two other galaxy-type objects relatively close to the Star Wars galaxy. Again only a claim - without any evidence.

Nope, you can't just say "Ignoring that his assumption is wrong" without providing evidence to show why I am wrong.

That's especially bad form of him as I had already quoted Curtis Saxton - who seems to have more knowledge about astrophysics than Eternal_Freedom - saying:

"Remarkably, two more spiral galaxies appear in the top left and bottom right corners of the image. They may be more distant galaxies that coincidentally lie in the background, or they may be nearer but smaller satellite galaxies that are gravitationally bound to the Galactic Republic. In projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. Therefore the other galaxies must really be located somewhat in front of or behind the main plane of the picture. "

As it seems, Curtis Saxton can not decide if these galaxies are more distant galaxies or nearer but smaller satellite galaxies. But he explains that in projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. With other words: Curtis Saxton thinks that they can not be as close as it seems on that image.

But Eternal_Freedom claims that - without providing any evidence.

I do not doubt that Saxton knows more of astrophysics than I do. However, I said they were satellite galaxies - a position that Saxton agrees is possible - I did not say they were as close as they appear to be (one galactic diameter or less). It is, after all, a three-dimensional system compresed into a two-dimensional image, the two objects have to be closer to or further away than the main galaxy. That being said, that does not mean they are not gravitationally bound to the SW galaxy as satellites.

Also, the two objects seen in that Jedi Archive image are roughly the same brightness, meaning that if they are background galaxies, they would have to be a) very large to appear that size at average galactic separations and b) much brighter than the average galaxy to appear that bright from the vantage point of the image.

Since you seem to enjoy implying I have no, or limited knowledge of astronomy/astrophysics, you must surely have some education yourself on the subject, to recognise so clearly that I am wrong and making "bullshit claims." Pray tell, what qualifications do you hold on the subject?

Ignoring all that bullshit coming from Lord Revan and Eternal_Freedom, the next logical step is to ask which evidence there is for the dimension of this galaxy.

You say they are bullshit, yet you have done nothing to refute them beyond nitpick, be very obtuse, misrepresent what I have said and endlessly call for "more evidence" - and then misrepresent that when I do provide it, as I mentioned earlier with the Wikipedia links.

And please consider that an appeal to probability is no evidence and is considered a logical fallacy.

And please consider that I'm looking for evidence regardless where it leads. I'm not claiming that the size of the Star Wars galaxy is small, average or big. Insofar I have not to disprove that a claimed size is wrong. I have not to prove that the Star Wars galaxy is a dwarf galaxy. I do not have to prove that it has an average size. And I do not have to prove that it is a gigantic galaxy.

I'm asking you to provide evidence for its size - any size that is supported by the available evidence.

Well, we have established that it is a spiral galaxy with two main arms and several spurs. While I have no evidence at hand for it being a Milky Way-sized spiral, we have plenty of evidence that shows it can't be a dwarf spiral galaxy:

1. Dwarf spirals have no dense central bulge - the SW galaxy has one
2. Dwarf spirals, being dwarf galaxies which are a subset of the LSB galaxies already mentioned, are in the vast majority of cases isolated field galaxies - the SW galaxy does not appear to be so
3. Dwarf spirals, being LSBs, have no known supernovae activity - SW has known supernovae activity (Han's famous line about bouncing too close to a supernova indicates they are common enough for common pilots and farm boys to be familiar with)

Since it has a spiral structure, and it apparently not possible for it to be a dwarf spiral, process of elimination means it has to be a full size spiral galaxy, which have sizes ranging from ~50 kly diameters and up IIRC. That gives us a nice lower limit for it's size.

[Simon_Jester]

It really is a shame that those participants in this thread with the biggest mouth, Lord Revan, Eternal_Freedom, Boeing 757, Adamskywalker007, were unable to provide any evidence.

They literally just did provide evidence. You're lying.

You're also misrepresenting a key type of argument. Others are saying "Most A are B, therefore until proven otherwise, we should assume this particular example of A is also an example of B."

This is a valid argument. It's called "inductive logic" with a dash of "Bayesian logic."

Except that frankly, you probably already knew this, you're just trying to find loopholes in arguments you don't understand.

And please consider that an appeal to probability is no evidence and is considered a logical fallacy.

The appeal to probability is only a fallacy when someone says "A is probably B, therefore it must be B."

In this case, the argument is "A is probably B, and it is highly unlikely to be Z, therefore unless you present extraordinary evidence of it being Z, we should not assume it is Z."

Whereas you keep fighting for the "A is actually Z" argument on the grounds of "you can't prove it's not Z!" And you keep asserting "you can't prove it's not Z!" using argument from ignorance tactics, while taking great pains to make sure your ignorance is not damaged by anyone trying to present new knowledge.

And please consider that I'm looking for evidence regardless where it leads. I'm not claiming that the size of the Star Wars galaxy is small, average or big.

That is a blatant lie.

You have persistently dismissed and ignored any evidence arguing that the Star Wars galaxy is not small, while making up very contrived and improbable conjectures to 'prove' that it is small.

[Lord Revan]

And please consider that I'm looking for evidence regardless where it leads. I'm not claiming that the size of the Star Wars galaxy is small, average or big.

That is a blatant lie.

You have persistently dismissed and ignored any evidence arguing that the Star Wars galaxy is not small, while making up very contrived and improbable conjectures to 'prove' that it is small.

this is a very good point, Watch-man your biggest flaw on this thread is that you keep claiming your goal is one thing yet your actions don't confirm to that goal and in cases even counterdict it.

meaning you say your goal is "to look for evidence no matter where it leads", however your actions show a desperate need to prove one path over another to the extent that you accept claims towards your desired path no matter how improbable without a shread of evidence to support them, while you demand evidence for even the most insignigant details from the other paths.

It's almost like "please provide evidence" is a code for "sure I don't have evidence to support my claims but I must be right and must prove I ain't"

In fact the only way your actions could match your stated goal is that if you were trying to play the "devil's advocate" and doing a really shitty job with it.

[Queue]

We do not interfere in debates when one side is unpopular, or even wrong time after time after time. We do, however, interfere when a debate starts to seem like it's slowly circling the drain. We can't declare victors, but we don't need to: The arguments and responses from all involved are here for posterity, and any impartial reader who comes along will be able to tell if something is meritless or dishonest on their own.

In my opinion, this debate is nearly over. Substantial evidence of the SW galaxy's shape has been provided in the form of screen shots, and more importantly, Eternal_Freedom has demonstrated, using references reasonably available to a layperson, why it is improbable that it would be a dwarf spiral galaxy.

WATCH-MAN, do you have any further contention against the evidence that:

1) The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy.
2) The SW galaxy cannot be a dwarf spiral galaxy.

If you disagree, please provide your alternative explanation of the evidence available.

[WATCH-MAN]

• I do not have the time to reply to all that was said - especially as most posts did not contributed to the thread.
  
  In my last post I complained that the source that Eternal_Freedom gave for his claim that most dwarf galaxies are low surface brightness galaxies didn't support that claim.
  
  He wrote:
  

  • • • • Well dwarf spiral galaxies can be that small (indeed they are often categorised as being low-luminosity spirals of 5kpc/15kly diameter). They are considered a subset of low surface brightness galaxies.

  Following the link to Wikipedia, there it is written:
  
  • • • • [quote="Wikipedia about "Low-surface-brightness galaxy""]Most LSBs are dwarf galaxies, [...][/quote]
  The source Eternal_Freedom gave did not support his claim.
  
  Responding to my complain, Eternal_Freedom provided another source which seemed to confirmed his claim:
  
  • • • • [quote="Wikipedia about "Dwarf spiral galaxies""]A dwarf spiral galaxy is the dwarf version of a spiral galaxy. Dwarf galaxies are galaxies are characterized as having low luminosities, small diameters (less than 5 kpc), low surface brightnesses, and low hydrogen masses." and that they "may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies[/quote]
  I admit that in the Wikipedia entry about "Dwarf spiral galaxies" it is written that such "galaxies are characterized as having low luminosities, small diameters (less than 5 kpc), low surface brightnesses, and low hydrogen masses." and that they "may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies".
  
  But what does that mean?
  
  Dwarf spiral galaxies only may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies. That's more than vague.
  
  It does not mean that they are low-surface-brightness galaxies.
  
  It does not mean that they are a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.
  
  It does not mean that they are considered to be a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.
  
  It does mean that they only may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.
  
  Are they or are they not low-surface-brightness galaxies?
  
  And how different are dwarf spiral galaxies from normal low-surface-brightness galaxies?
  
  How much of what Wikipedia writes about low-surface-brightness galaxies applies to dwarf spiral galaxies?
  
  There have to be difference enough to put into question if dwarf spiral galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies.
  
  I could address the other arguments of Eternal_Freedom too.
  
  But as they are mostly depending on the assumption that dwarf spiral galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies and that all typical characteristics of low-surface-brightness galaxies can be found in dwarf spiral galaxies, I think it makes more sense to wait until Eternal_Freedom addressed the uncertainty his given sources have left.

[Lord Revan]

Watch-man seeing how certain you are that the SW galaxy is a dense dwarf galaxy, surely you have a wealth of evidence to support that claim right? so would you kindly share some of that evidence with us?

that's all I ask, surely that can't be so hard?

[Galvatron]

Does it matter that certain characters in the new EU novels have actually thought or stated that it's a large galaxy?

[Lord Revan]

Well I'd say that depends on the context of where that was said. even a 3 kly galaxy is huge when you're trying to find someone or something hidden.

That said I'm still waiting for the evidence for the assertion that the SW galaxy is a dense dwarf galaxy, I've asked it twice already, if Watch-man has time to play semantics with everything someone else then him writes surely he has time to provide evidence for his assertions.

[Galvatron]

From Star Wars: A New Dawn...
Spoiler

The destruction of Cynda, if it could be done, might be of military interest. Moons with its peculiar structure, orbit, and proximity to its parent planet were rare, but it paid to have a variety of tools in so large a galaxy.

From Star Wars: Heir to the Jedi...
Spoiler

Nakari laughed and then pointed at me with her right hand. “Seriously, Luke, there’s your answer. The Empire didn’t think of everything when they built the Death Star. And they didn’t succeed in getting rid of all knowledge concerning the Jedi, either. It’s a big galaxy. I’m sure they didn’t erase everything. There has to be something, or somebody, somewhere, that can help you learn whatever it is you want to learn.”

Again, FWIW.