Why isn't there an effort to name non-stellar celestial objects?

​

Nathi ORea said:

- NGC 3532
- NGC 3293
- NGC 3114

Motore said:

Aren't these names?

Nathi ORea said:

I mean an actual word name. This is just a catalogue number.

Nathi ORea said:

TL;DR Summary: I am wondering why there isn't an effort to name non-stellar objects like they do seem to be doing with stars.

As an amateur astronomer, I find it really hard to think or talk about objects as numbers. They deserve names.

Baluncore said:

So you want a committee established to allocate names to objects in the catalogue. Will you pay the committee members for their time ?

Nathi ORea said:

As an amateur astronomer, I find it really hard to think or talk about objects as numbers. They deserve names.
Do you think there might ever be an effort to create/standardise non-stellar objects like the IAU Working Group on Star names?

Nathi ORea said:

As an amateur astronomer

Nathi ORea said:

TL;DR Summary: I am wondering why there isn't an effort to name non-stellar objects like they do seem to be doing with stars.

I find it kind of strange that some of the brightest star clusters (and probably other things too), do not have official names or seemingly no names at all.
For instance there are 3 really bright clusters around the Carina Nebula:
- NGC 3532: Which seems to be called a bunch of different names
- NGC 3293: Also has a bunch of different names
- NGC 3114: Doesn't seem to have a name at all.
These clusters are easily visible in binoculars.
As an amateur astronomer, I find it really hard to think or talk about objects as numbers. They deserve names.
Do you think there might ever be an effort to create/standardise non-stellar objects like the IAU Working Group on Star names?

PeroK said:

It does seem a bit soulless even if it's the practical thing to do.

Ibix said:

I think it's just a case of "who cares". The catalog numbers are unambiguous, easily indexed, and don't suffer from regional spelling/alphabet variations. People can hang any localised nickname they like off them without any need for formal agreement if they actually feel a need for it.

Baluncore said:

So you want a committee established to allocate names to objects in the catalogue.

Baluncore said:

Someone will rely on their memory, but get it wrong, and so waste valuable observatory time observing the wrong patch of sky.

Who will maintain and distribute the translation codebook or cross-index that is then needed to convert backwards and forwards between the catalogue and the partial list of names that are allocated ?

PeroK said:

It does seem a bit soulless even if it's the practical thing to do.

Vanadium 50 said:

So your position is that the professionals are doing it wrong? Are you sure that's the path you want to go down?

Ibix said:

To be fair, I think the IAU does assign official names to asteroids alongside catalogue numbers. I'm not sure why asteroids get the honour and not stars. Maybe it's also that we occasionally discover that what we thought was a star isn't (Vanadium 50 cited BL Lacertae in a recent post) and then what do we do with the name? Asteroids are close enough that we're pretty certain that it's just a hunk of rock.

https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming_stars/​

Nathi ORea said:

It just seems like they do it for other things. Why not star clusters.

Star clusters get no love but... and I'm talking about bright binocular clusters.

Vanadium 50 said:

So your position is that the professionals are doing it wrong? Are you sure that's the path you want to go down?