Re: Upgrade of 'TAV' or 'TASV' on Name Lists > The list is prepared by Mike Collins and the page is only 'hosted' on > the 'TA' WWW site. As far as I know no-one checks the updates and I can > only suggest you direct any comments or queries direct to Mike. ... > As my work as TA editor is quite demanding and variables form only a > very small part of items published, can I leave you to exchanges notes > with Mike if you need to comment further? I will copy your latest notes > to him. Mike is always included in the cc:-list of this thread. All the message could be considered as suggestions or requests. The requests should not be rather considered private, but are from a collection of more public ones. > I could perhaps add that Mike does not search for variables. His main > project is the photographic patrol for novae. Variables are found by > accident as a by-product of his work. He then probably has very little > time to investigate them as nova patrol work is very demanding. This > probably explains why some objects remain as 'suspects' only after many > years. I was not speaking of why Mike himself didn't further investigate these variables, but you said: > 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. Simply I was talking that this supposed process didn't work very ideally. And, with an addition of other observations, i.e. from Takamizawa, MISAO project and other observers, I wanted to show this process could have worked more efficiently. The difficulty in accessing to the basic data of TA variable, and the nomenclature system at least confusing to the non-TA members, has apparently hindered such a coordinated effort. Regards, Taichi Kato