IC 4617 seems strangely absent? [Solved: will check]

[EmeraldHillsSkies]

First, let me say - this is a remarkable set of catalogs. It's -- rather amazing. So... this is just one tiny little detail. Please don't let it detract from the huge body of work represented by SkyTools. But... in the interest of even more amazing completeness....

I wonder why we can't find IC4617, a spiral galaxy in the same field as M13?

Doug

[obrazell]

It is there as LEDA 2085077. If you want it as IC 4617 you can either add it as that name in the supplemental database or add the name as a note (Gregs preferred way :-))

[EmeraldHillsSkies]

Thanks Obrazell! (I thought it was interesting... I found two or three interactions from you over in an old thread from CloudyNights in which you were also helping would-be SkyTools users there too. You are quite the volunteer. Thanks for jumping in!)

OK - I checked on adding it to the Note. On the one hand, I like it that it stays there in the Note even if I remove the object from the active list. (I.e., if I bring it back, the Note is still there.) But evidently, those "Notes" are not searchable (and I can see why they wouldn't be) when trying to find an object in the Designation Search box.

However, the Supplemental Catalog (I searched help and found the dialogue box in the Data Menu) was *exactly* what I needed. It let me add the M.I.A. object and now that object *is* searchable in the Designation search box, exactly as I would have wished. This allows me to tune my database exactly the way I'd like. This is great architecture - and it worked perfectly. Thanks for the help, Obrazell! Inquiry closed!

Doug

[EmeraldHillsSkies]

By the way, Obrazell, I actually just decided to shift my approach on this slightly. If I understood you correctly, Greg preferred the idea of putting "IC 4617" in the Note field of LEDA 2085077. I bet I can guess why. I see now that by creating a new entry in the Supplemental list, I've basically introduced a total duplicate of the same object into the system. So observations reported of LEDA 2085077 wouldn't be reflected in the new IC 4617 object I created from scratch in Supplemental. So now what I decided to do was insert a reminder in the "Brief" note field of my newly-created object (in Supplemental) that says, "(reference only: Use LEDA 2085077 as primary)." In this way, if/when I ever search for IC 4617 in the Add Objects dialogue, IC 4617 will faithfully appear. I'll click "Add" and then, in my list, I'll see the reference reminder - and then I'll know to delete the reference reminder and add LEDA 2085077 instead. Then, for LEDA 2085077, I added IC 4617 into the *Brief* note field so it will at least appear that way in my tabular list of objects. I think this system will work for me. I *wish* we could edit the inner fields of the behind-the-scenes object-list tables, but Greg is probably afraid we would mess them up. hahaha : ) But this will work for sure. Thanks again for helping me get this.

[obrazell]

You will find that there are a number of IC galaxies that have not made the database.

[EmeraldHillsSkies]

You will find that there are a number of IC galaxies that have not made the database.

OK - I'll watch for those. Now that I know how to do this, I'll know either to...

• Create the connector/reminder in the supplemental database that points me to the alternate Designation - then enter the IC designation in the "Brief" note field for the corresponding object designator (again, if one exists)... OR....
  
• Create a *real* (primary) entry in the supplemental database for an object that might *not* exist.
  

Either scenario will work for me now - thanks to the time you took to orient me. Again, deeply grateful for your help.

Doug

[theskyhound]

You will find that there are a number of IC galaxies that have not made the database.

Hi Owen, I know that some galaxies are missing, but I would expect them to primarily be the much fainter ones that than NGC/IC. Is it possible what you mean is that the galaxy is in in fact in the database, but the IC cross reference is missing?

[theskyhound]

First, let me say - this is a remarkable set of catalogs. It's -- rather amazing. So... this is just one tiny little detail. Please don't let it detract from the huge body of work represented by SkyTools. But... in the interest of even more amazing completeness....

I wonder why we can't find IC4617, a spiral galaxy in the same field as M13?

Doug

I think there are enough of these missing IC cross references for galaxies that I need to do some sort of cross check and fix of the database. I adopted the cross references from LEDA at the time the galaxy database was built and it seems they had some sort of issue including all of the cross references.

[EmeraldHillsSkies]

First, let me say - this is a remarkable set of catalogs. It's -- rather amazing. So... this is just one tiny little detail. Please don't let it detract from the huge body of work represented by SkyTools. But... in the interest of even more amazing completeness....

I wonder why we can't find IC4617, a spiral galaxy in the same field as M13?

Doug

I think there are enough of these missing IC cross references for galaxies that I need to do some sort of cross check and fix of the database. I adopted the cross references from LEDA at the time the galaxy database was built and it seems they had some sort of issue including all of the cross references.

It did indeed seem odd in such an otherwise-astonishingly-complete database of targets. Thanks for all you do, Greg.