bill-gray / galnovae Goto Github PK

The nova list has V407 Cyg classified as ZAND. However, the system showed a classical nova eruption in 2010 (becoming the first gamma-ray detected nova https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329..817A/abstract ). The nova-host system is indeed a symbiotic binary containing a Mira red giant donor and the white dwarf primary. However, the 2010 eruption was fast, typical for a classical rather than symbiotic (ZAND) novae. The 2010 event was a classical nova eruption in a symbiotic binary system (the terminology is, admittedly, confusing).

The current version of GCVS lists the classification as "M+NB:" http://www.sai.msu.su/gcvs/cgi-bin/search2.cgi?search=V407+Cyg
It is unknown what was the nature of the 1936 outburst: was it a ZAND outburst or just a maximum of the Mira.
The VSX classifies V407 Cyg as NR+ZAND+M https://www.aavso.org/vsx/index.php?view=detail.top&oid=11327
The "R" = "recurrent" seems unjustified to me, as there is only one confirmed nova eruption in this system - the one in 2010.

I suggest to add "NB:" to classification of V407 Cyg to indicate that it is actually a confirmed classical nova rather than a ZAND symbiotic nova, so it shows up as one after screening the list for confirmed novae. Maybe ZAND can be kept as a secondary classification as the nature of the 1936 event is uncertain.

It seems the value of MAX.MAG for V2860 Ori is wrong:

It seems V2860 Ori was caught after the peak and already in the decay phase [1,2], and published data starts after 1 day since the outburst [3] or several days [4].

I suppose the value 0.4 in the MAX.MAG is a typo and the discovery magnitude 9.4 was intended.

references:
[1]. https://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=13027
[2]. https://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-676
[4]. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abeb75/pdf
[3]. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d5e/pdf

Thank you for the effort on maintaining this catalog. It is very useful! I only have two suggestions... The GCVS_ID fields for V351 Pup, V868 Cen, V496 Sct and V992 Sco have two space characters between the number and the constellation. It can be inconvenient to someone that is matching the catalog by the objects' names. Also, I missed Z Cam and AT CnC in the list. Thank you.

I noticed that some novae display strange words in the date column.

These are the novae:

1).

I observe this information is inherent in the CBAT List of Novae. Also, some information appears in the OBSCURE XID column as well (novae with numbers listed here 2, 6, 7). On the other hand, some others are not straightforward (at least to me) like in 1, 4, and 8.

Have you considered removing this information? If you want, I can take care of this through a Pull Request. However, I would like to know what information wants to be preserved before moving forward.