Re: Upgrade of 'TAV' or 'TASV' on Name Lists Guy M Hurst wrote: > I can see that my earlier statement has been misunderstood. What I was > trying to convey was that all those stars appearing on a given Name List > which previously had 'TAV' or 'TASV' designations will have their charts > updated so that observers use the new name. Okay, I understand that. > However, of course there will be many others which will not feature in a > given 'Name List'. This is because the GCVS team are waiting for more > data or a paper with detailed analysis to determine type, amplitude etc. > > I entirely support the view that variables should not be placed in the > name list until adequate evidence of variation is established, > preferably by more than one observer, and that supporting data on type > and range be supplied. This may well mean collecting data on many years > for slowly changing small amplitude variables. The existence of numerous variables still unnamed even after ten years of the discovery seems to me to tell that this process is not working ideally. As reported in [vsnet-newvar 686], some of such variables have been independently discovered by other observers (the identification was incidentally found by me). The combination of such observations would provide additional information about the variablility nature of the object, but in the absence of publicly available full list (the quoted positions on the TA website are not often very accurate, which may hinder secure identifications without associated charts), one would have no idea how many other identifications have escaped detection (quite a loss...). I am not personally specially interested in the details of the TA discoveries, but if there is a publicly available (i.e. on your web) handy and comprehensive list of TA variables, enabling modern-day identifications, I would be fully satisfied with that. Perhaps this requirement would apply to other variable star observers and researchers. Regards, Taichi Kato