Some DSO names are dubious #11
Comments
|
While the DSO names are still work in progress and I very much insisted that we at least track a reference for some "funnies" and not collect everything from everywhere, I agree that some names require better source reference or more common acceptance. However, common acceptance requires previous publication in widespread journals and software and will likely take 3-20 years, so this is circular argumentation of a tricky kind. E.g. you will likely not find the name "Pillars of Creation" before that Hubble image. |
|
Thanks for your answer. Sorry if I missed some discussion on the subject (I did try to browse through the mailing list’s archive but did not find any discussion on that. I’d be happy to read any thread you would point me to). Before writing to Don Pensack I’d prefer to know if anybody informed him already that his list has been incorporated in Stellarium, which may change a lot the content of my message. But apart from that : I think a good rule of thumb would be to see if image search engines returns any relevant results. For example, "lawnmower cluster" (=NGC 663 according to B500, which is the one that initially raised my eyebrows) returns zero astronomical results, whereas "pillars of creation" returns nearly 100% NGC 6611/M16 - related results. "Eagle nebula" (which is the label I see currently in that region) is also OK according to this criterion. |
|
This was a private discussion between Alexander and myself. |
|
OK. I was also aware that "Pillars" is a particular zone of M16, given its high notoriety I wouldn’t mind seeing its location pinpointed in Stellarium but it should not replace Eagle nebula or M16 (would feel like seeing "Eiffel Tower" instead of "Paris" on google earth !). Concerning B500, honestly, lots of names look weird. Those are the first 10 occurences in names.dat : NGC 40 _("Scarab Nebula") <-- is better known as "Bow-Tie nebula", in fact this other name appears first in the names.dat list and is displayed So it appears to me that in 9 other 10 cases it is more a "remarks" column or mnemonics for the author’s use, but not identifiers that should appear very prominently in Stellarium. |
|
Ok, I got an answer from Don Pensack. Quoting his mail, "The common names in my list are from other amateurs, from Sue French and Steve O'Meara and other books I have. Each name is something I have heard or read." In the rest of his mail he makes a good point in explaining that giving names makes memorization easier for amateur astronomers wishing to keep track of the objects. My conclusion is that this list is interesting and is a nice addition to Stellarium, as it highlights DSOs that are reachable by (advanced) amateur astronomers (an equivalent list for southern hemisphere may be found at But I think it should be displayed as such (perhaps this is what you mean by "filtering the list by user-selected sources" ?), e.g. "The 500 Best Deep Sky Objects' by Don Pensack", with an identifier like "B500 -#NN : Hairy Eyebrow Galaxy", not displayed by default. And I strongly feel that, besides of that, any addition to the default "names.dat" should be at least checked against a basic search on google/bing/whatever, because this is exactly what users will do when they stumble on funny names on the sky map… If no results are astronomy-related, this might cast doubts on Stellarium’s accuracy. |
As discussed in issue Stellarium#11, I browsed through the DSO names and removed the ones that were not very commonly used. Note that the problem has also been spotted here : https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/303840-where-does-stellarium-get-these-names/ Most of them came from the B500 source but I occasionaly spotted others. Methodology : combined google image search on the name, and/or general search on the identifier to look which nicknames where proeminent. If unsuccesful : entry removed. I added a guideline in the file header for future contributors. I also checked in the source to see how duplicates where handled, and wrote my findings there too (1st entry = proper name, next = aliases).
As discussed in issue Stellarium#11, I browsed through the DSO names and removed the ones that were not very commonly used. Note that the problem has also been spotted here : https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/303840-where-does-stellarium-get-these-names/ Most of them came from the B500 source but I occasionaly spotted others. Methodology : combined google image search on the name, and/or general search on the identifier to look which nicknames where proeminent. If unsuccesful : entry removed. I added a guideline in the file header for future contributors. I also checked in the source to see how duplicates where handled, and wrote my findings there too (1st entry = proper name, next = aliases).
As discussed in issue Stellarium#11, I browsed through the DSO names and removed the ones that were not very commonly used. Note that the problem has also been spotted here : https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/303840-where-does-stellarium-get-these-names/ Most of them came from the B500 source but I occasionaly spotted others. Methodology : combined google image search on the name, and/or general search on the identifier to look which nicknames where proeminent. If unsuccesful : entry removed. I added a guideline in the file header for future contributors. I also checked in the source to see how duplicates where handled, and wrote my findings there too (1st entry = proper name, next = aliases).
|
I've revisiting the names of DSO from various books and works going is not very fast (no google within books :) ), plus I added new option to the GUI to hide an additional names for DSO. |
|
Please check version 0.17.0 (I'll revisiting the names of DSO for next versions also) |
|
I am now checking the nickname of DSO and first find:
Deep-sky companions: the Messier objects by Stephen James OMeara p112-113 Here is the nickname "Crackerjack" of M22, which using a trademark. I don't support adding the same things into our sky, which will be mentioned by our later people, just like the Robur Carolinum. Please don't close this issue, I would like to help checking more. |
|
Hmm, yes this family of topics is still open. We still need some way of selection/excluding unwanted sources for star names, DSO names, and probably also asterisms. A new Dialog in the Skyculture tab which loads the reference.fab and let the users select which references to take names from. And names only found in the unselected sources must then be suppressed. "Crackerjack" may be something US citizens would probably know (if it is as widespread as OMeara seems to tell us) and refer to in everyday language. But it says nothing to me. I mentally translate this into "some US American [probably crispy] cookie", without even bothering whether it's sweet or salty. The connection with some prize is therefore lost, making it indeed a totally useless name. And yes, we should not introduce trademarks or product names into the sky :-) |
M86's name "FAUST V051" should be removed.As mentioned at simbad annotation, "FAUST V051" is only a catalog number of a unknown survey FAUST Observations of Ultraviolet Sources toward the Virgo Cluster (pub 1997), we should not list it into the important Messier Nicknames.
|
Right, this is just "yet another catalog number" from a catalog where we don't have all objects. And it does have a memorizable name... |
M25 == υ Sgr Cluster ?
So maybe it should be removed or corrected. |
Dragon Nebula is NGC6523 rather than NGC5623 ?I also help checking Messier SEDS, which may indicate some DSO name sources of stellarium.
|
|
This υ Sgr Cluster entry is weird. Must be a misprint for μ Sgr Cluster. OK, there are many errors here. Can you maybe collect all and send a pull request? If this book is too bad, we should either remove its entries (it it does not provide anything relevant), or at least throw out obvious errors. |
|
I have finished all Messier nicknames checking. Now the important issues of them are all mentioned here. Okay, wait for my PR or you can also do it. |
|
The point about referencing is that we (should) let users decide which names they want to activate, be it even a "suspicious" list like B500. If you can fill in the gaps (missing references) for some DSO names, this would also be helpful. E.g. why is a whale galaxy at the same time a herring galaxy? Or see the weird entries for IC3568... who (mis-)copied lime and lemon here? |
* add source of Messier objects * format: clear some duplicate lines * clear some dso-names for issue #11 * typo * format and correct N2547 * correct NGC4699 (HT68) and remove “Lagoon Nebula” to NGC6530 (!= M8) * rename M51B Co-authored-by: ultrapre <[email protected]>
* add source of Messier objects * format: clear some duplicate lines * clear some dso-names for issue #11 * typo * format and correct N2547 * correct NGC4699 (HT68) and remove “Lagoon Nebula” to NGC6530 (!= M8) * rename M51B * keyhole nebula is a dark region inside NGC3372, already in names list * error assign to N1922 and 4990 * "Witch's Broom Galaxy"(NGC6990) should be a typo to NGC6960(Witch's Broom Nebula) Co-authored-by: ultrapre <[email protected]>
* add source of Messier objects * format: clear some duplicate lines * clear some dso-names for issue #11 * typo * format and correct N2547 * correct NGC4699 (HT68) and remove “Lagoon Nebula” to NGC6530 (!= M8) * rename M51B * keyhole nebula is a dark region inside NGC3372, already in names list * error assign to N1922 and 4990 * "Witch's Broom Galaxy"(NGC6990) should be a typo to NGC6960(Witch's Broom Nebula) * Add name for NGC6397/C86 in Ara (astrobin) One of the nearest globular clusters but nameless; Vt5.2, bright enough for naming 'Constellation Globular Clusters' * add name for NGC1313 (WP) * add name for NGC3521 from searching * typo of ACO S373 * add AAPOD2 source for NGC3521 * add ESA-Hubble source for NGC3521 Co-authored-by: ultrapre <[email protected]>
alex-w
added
the
subsystem: catalogs
Hello,
I am a bit surprised by some of the names appearing in my favorite planetarium software for some deep sky objects...
I think this tracks back to commit ee300ad
Impacted file : nebulae/default/names.dat (and possibly translations of it ?)
The indicated source for the names is : the list of 'The 500 Best Deep Sky Objects' by Don Pensack; https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/472872-500-best-dso-list/
(later tagged "B500" once comments were allowed, i.e from commit 9192214)
Although the list itself is fine and certainly useful, the "name" column contains mostly nicknames for which I don’t find any primary source. To my opinion they should not appear in Stellarium, which should stick to official identifiers (or more commonly accepted name sources).
I would suggest to remove the lines with B500 source (I can submit a PR if agreed).
Anyway thanks for the good work on Stellarium !
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: