I have a proposal that we could separate these stars even further by type, i.e. white dwarfs, main sequence, supergiants, etc, in addition to a subcategory for binaries. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:37, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, though I don't know how many of them are ever described as anything more specific than "star". --Imp 23:43, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh I'm sure someone would have paid more attention to this. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:47, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Not often. Normally Star Wars plays pretty loose with the astronomy; only a very few planets are likely to be well-enough described to have their stellar type actually discussed. jSarek 05:41, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Is Subcategorizing Necessary or Desirable?Edit

Are we really sure we should be categorizing stars this finely? Is sorting by stellar type actually going to help our users any, or is it just going to complicate things for users who couldn't tell a black hole from a O1I? jSarek 09:15, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Further, how many stars do we know this type of information about? --SparqMan 13:29, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Why were the subclassifications reverted? The user could search for the star manually if they couldn't find it in the bloated list of regular main sequence stars. I request that all stars be reverted to their subclassifications. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:47, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, I did not see the subclassifications as they were moved to other pages within this category. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:49, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Should we make Category:Stars by location and Category:Stars by type? --Azizlight 06:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was just thinking of doing that. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)