 | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Template‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Nice template! Good initiative! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over time many of the topics here - especially some of the 'Exotic compact star' topics [eg Quark star · Preon star · Q star · Fuzzball · Boson star · Gravastar · Dark energy star · Black star · Electroweak star · Eternally collapsing object etc] may need to be moved to the 'Obsolete Science' category. This will need monitoring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk • contribs)
Catalogues are not listed here, like on the French template. Perhaps this should be included into "lists" or should we add a new category? --Io Herodotus (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, white, black, and brown dwarfs have no place there - these objects are not stars, but stellar remnants (white, black) and substellar objects (brown), and do not belong to the dwarf (main sequence) luminosity class in spite of their names. --203.57.209.105 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the orange dwarf classification being excluded as one of the examples of a luminosity class dwarf star? Even if you assume that the upper mass for a red dwarf is half that of the Sun's, ignoring the fact that some put the upper mass for red dwarfs much lower at one quarter that of the Sun's, you're still excluding the orange dwarf stars with masses between a half and three quarters that of the Sun. These currently ignored stars are not red or yellow dwarf stars but still they are very much main sequence stars and so surely orange dwarfs are just as valid examples of dwarf stars as red and yellow dwarfs? These orange dwarf stars aren't oddities, by any stretch of the imagination. There are estimated to be as many stars in the K0-K5 spectral classification range as there are stars in the O, B, A, F and G spectral class classifications added together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.6.205 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]I've moved the article Be startoB(e) star. The definition given in the opening paragraph of the article clearly described a B[e] (aka B(e)) star although the rest of the article rambles on about a mixture of Be and B[e] phenomena. A category Be stars still remains, and this template has a link to the article, currently through a redirect. Should I edit the template to point directly to the new article name? Should I change the text from "Be" to "B[e]" or "B(e)"? Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
