Inferring from the title of a just released cbet, the new, new nova,
in Scorpius is confirmed. Also it states the naming of it as V1281
Sco, as predicted, so the line I upped earlier below only needs the ?
removed from N? , and maybes a positional and max mag update in time,
but wouldn't need deleting if it'd been included.

J

--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, "duble.stars" <duble.stars@...> wrote:
>
>
> Alrighty, according to an aavso special notice, itself quoting an
> IAUC, there's another new nova in Scorpius (and one of these days
> someone will finally explain to me why folk in the USA always uniquely
> stick # symbols in front of numbers).
>
> Anyway, there's no details in the aavso alert as to where the
> astrometry comes from, ie is it from the original wide field images,
> thus likely to be replaced at a later date by a better position, or
> has someone done a more rigorous measure as follow up.
>
> So, this is what I usually do in such cases, coz remember this ain't
> been confirmed a true nova yet...
>
> ...coz it's the second one in Scorpius this year, the first one has
> it's name change from N Sco 2007 to N Sco 2007/1 (this notation has no
> special privilege, it's simply copied from the original Duerbeck
> source tables used for the <=1987 data).
>
> Thus the line for that in galnovae.dat becomes
>
> N Sco 2007/1 2007 V1280 Sco 16 57 40.91 -32 20 36.4 9.4
> C 3.7 v <20 r N Nakamura.Y,
> Sakurai.Y
>
> it'll've got wordwrapped.
>
> Now, the new one needs data entering, in RA position, which by sheer
> freaky coincidence is exactly before the N Sco 2007/1 position in this
> instance.
>
> NOTE, this is preliminary, this will only work if it turns out to be a
> real nova, though at present there's no reason for it not to, but
> sometimes stuff turns out to be a CV, therefore the truly cautious
> will back up their copy of galnovae.dat first.
>
> Also, until it is official the designation of V1281 Sco is complete
> assumption!
>
> Anyway, insert this into galnovae.dat immediately before the entry for
> N Sco 2007/1
>
> N Sco 2007/2 2007 V1281 Sco 16 56 59.35 -35 21 50.2 9.2
> p N? Nakamura.Y.,
> Nishimura.H.
>
> which again will need unwordwrapping to be only one line.
>
> If/when confirmed all that needs to be changed is the N? to N.
>
> If astrometry preliminary and better astrometry released at later
> date, the position needs updating.
>
> If the discovery mag turns out to be the max mag, that entry can be
> made (galnovae.dat has column headers on first line), if the max mag
> exceeds discovery mag, that can be entered later too, all a matter of
> personal choice and preference.
>
> IF the thing gets rejected as a nova, the complete line is simple
> deleted and galnovae.dat resaved and consequently it's no different
> than what it was.
>
> Well, except N Sco 2007/1 will have to be renamed back to N Sco 2007 ,
> which is always a bit of a nuisance when two go off in the same
> constellation, and you have to remember these knock on changes.
>
> It's as easy as that to add new novae, even when they are tentative,
> and although it would be wiser to wait for better data before
> updating, some folk will want to look at it _now_, so there's often a
> transitory phase. Announcement in an IAUC, even without spectroscopic
> confirmation, should be safe-ish, especially as no precursor can be
> found in the field down to POSS plate limits, allegedly.
>
> Again, anyone can update these files as long as they can find data
> posted to some mailing list or other, in this instance it's available
> online via aavso's home page, quoting directly from the official cbat
> iauc. And if it turns out to be a bust, it can be removed just as
easily.
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
> PS whether the nearby red star is truly variable is on the edge of
> being debatable. The asas3 data at this mag can look like that just
> due to scatter, and it is sparse, but what can ya do, ya get fedup of
> explaining stuff after awhile.
>