[vsnet-alert 23392] Re: TCP J21040470+4631129

[Taichi Kato]

> I would have recommended to use 'TCP J16271698+0405590' instead
> of 'PNV J16271698+0405590' or 'OT J16271698+0405590'.
> 'TCP' at least indicates where the discovery was originally
> announced; 'OT J...' is ambiguous in this regard. OTOH, when you
> come across an 'OT J...' designation, you can easily guess who
> made it up. ;-)

   The present case was simply by mistake and it should be
called TCP J21040470+4631129.

   However, looking at
http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/unconf/followups/J21040470+4631129.html
yet another designation PNV_J21040470+4631129.jpg already appeared!
This indicates that PNV/TCP designations are not distinguished
by (some) amateur astronomers.

   I would instead suggest to merge PNV and TCP categories
to TCP and abandon PNV.  Bright nova candidates can be
easily recognized even if they are given TCP designations.
(I would be even inclined to suggest to use TCP for PSN,
but PSN designations may have some value for supernova
astronomers).  TCP, simply, is a good and clear acronym for
CBAT TOCP and introduction of PNV or PSN may have introduced
extra complexity.

   OT designations have long history and are neutral.
They are as good as "EQ" in the AAVSO designations,
and "OT"s at least clearly show the transient nature.