This information comes from a US guidebook, and is contradictory to the information from the game itself. The game states this at different points in time:
Going by this version, Bowser's plan was to create
'his' galaxy, from where he will rule his great galactic empire, that will eventually spread his control to the entire universe. There is nothing here about literally destroying the universe and creating a new one. It is completely unfounded in the game.
As for the fan translation since people say that the English one is always inaccurate,
here is one I found that was used previously, I think.
I'll quote:
The first sentence is the same, except instead of galaxy, it mentions star. And the translator is not sure about the remaining part.
It means that Bowser was planning to create a
star as the center/core of his empire from where he and his army will rule the universe.
I thought I'd try a different source just to be sure. Here's another translation DragonLord asked a friend to do:
1.
The first scan I posted.
"Princess Peach! You are about to witness the birth of a new galaxy of my making!"
2.
"I'm putting the finishing touches on the core of my new universe, Great King Planet!"
3.
"With this planet in the center, I, along with Peach, will build a 10,000-year Great Galactic Empire!"
4.
"And my empire will spread across the whole universe like a big bang!"
According to this translation, it seems that the plan was to create a
planet. With that planet in center, he wanted to build a galactic empire (hence the birth of a new galaxy). And then extend his empire across the universe.
Since in Japanese there could be confusion between the word planet and star, that would explain why the two fan translations differ in that respect. But they are consistent with everything else.
Basically, the plan was to create a planet/star, as the core of his (galaxy) galactic empire, from which he will rule the universe.
From the Canon page:
I don't know why a description from a guide is being used over the description in the game when it blatantly contradicts the primary source. This needs to be fixed and we should stop using it.