<p>The messier catalogue and many others were not made to provide a list of interesting objects for amateur astronomers. They were meant at their time, as catalogue of objects of scientific interest - a purpose they served well; and the name given to the objects by the combination of the catalogue and their number therein, is something which hence identifies these objects.</p>
<p>As such: an &quot;update&quot; of the Messier catalogue is not possible; you can only create a new, another catalogue with similar choice of objects.</p>
<p>Now, if you want to make a list of &quot;objects interesting for amateur astronomers to observe&quot;, what would you do and what would happen?</p>
<p>Actually the Cadwell catalogue will happen, though that is designed as a complement to the Messier catalogue (despite Messier catalogue's 'imperfections' as it was meant to describe objects to be mistaken as comets at the time of creation).</p>
<p>Anyone is free to create such catalogues, but giving it unique, maybe more logical, yet new names for objects already bearing a commonly-used name is a thing which is hard to push: The US along with about 3 other countries in the world still use non-metric units? Why? Basically the same reason: tradition and it's hard to change one's behaviour, even when it's totally irrational.</p>
<p>Similar any such new catalogue will have to first gain traction and wide-spread usage. The new names also would offer little benefit (at least initially) as things have a name; and names only serve one purpose: to uniquely identify an object you talk about. A list with the traditional names serves the same purpose with the benefit that any amateur astronomer as well as professional might know what you talk about. That said, even the Caldwell catalogue is too new for me... so talk NGC xxxx or M yy and I might have an idea - but not for IDs of the Caldwell catalogue from 1995 (despite it being a good list of recommendation for observation objects).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T18:32:02.197Z
"were not made to provide a list of interesting objects for amateur astronomers"  I'm well aware of that however it is very commonly used as such.
Ray Andrews
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T18:34:30.433Z
"an "update" of the Messier catalogue is not possible; you can only create a new, another catalogue with similar choice of objects."  That is obvious but if it must be belabored then let me say 'catalogue that would *serve* as an updated Messier.'
Ray Andrews
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T18:37:57.223Z
"any such new catalogue will have to first gain traction and wide-spread usage"  Again that's quite obvious however Moore achieved it with Caldwell.  I merely note that something like I describe would seem to be useful and I'm wondering why it hasn't been done, or, perhaps it *has* been done and some helpful person will point me to it.
Ray Andrews
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T22:11:40.507Z
TBH, I'm not sure that Caldwell has really achieved that. He made a list, a good one. But I doubt that anyone I know will understand, what object you mean, if you refer to the Caldwell number of it. Before answering, I first had to lookup what the Caldwell catalogue *is*, only to remember that I heard of it only once before. Probably somewhere here.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T22:27:33.743Z
I can't really disagree -- I'm barely passed novice. I was looking for the 'improvement' on Messier that I'm talking about here and stumbled upon Caldwell but I can't say much more than that it sounds like a good idea.
Ray Andrews
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-09T16:36:14.277Z
2021-09-10T12:55:02.337Z
2021-09-10T12:55:02.337Z
planetmaker
<p>I'm about moving from beginner to intermediate amateur astronomer and it strikes me that the Messier catalogue is still so widely used given it's well agreed imperfections.  There's the logical Caldwell of course, but why not combine them?  Give us, say, the 100 best objects incorporating the best of M and the best of C.  Any such thing?  If not, why not?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-09T18:59:39.197Z
Please detail the "well agreed imperfections" of the Messier Catalog. I have used it for over sixty years without realizing there were problems with it. Beginner to intermediate users of the Google search engine have found several other catalogs amateur astronomers have found useful. I compiled a personal list of 26761 objects from a number of catalogs I found on line. You are welcome to it.
L d Bonnie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T00:07:40.780Z
@LdBonnie: Apparently nobody is exactly sure which object is [M102](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_102), but I can't find any other obvious problems. Contrast e.g. the NGC which has a significant number of "non-existent" objects.
Kevin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T18:27:46.400Z
"the "well agreed imperfections" of the Messier Catalog"  I don't have a list at hand but I've read about them many times.  In particular the Caldwell is said to have been created specifically to fill in the gaps
Ray Andrews
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-10T18:30:38.223Z
"several other catalogs amateur astronomers have found useful"  I'd be most grateful for a list.  One would expect them to exist but I only know of Messier and Caldwell.
Ray Andrews
<messier-catalog>
Why doesn't somebody update or improve the Messier catalogue?
Ray Andrews
# Why doesn't somebody update or improve the Messier catalogue?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-09)

I'm about moving from beginner to intermediate amateur astronomer and it strikes me that the Messier catalogue is still so widely used given it's well agreed imperfections. There's the logical Caldwell of course, but why not combine them? Give us, say, the 100 best objects incorporating the best of M and the best of C. Any such thing? If not, why not?

**Tags:** messier-catalog
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please detail the "well agreed imperfections" of the Messier Catalog. I have used it for over sixty years without realizing there were problems with it. Beginner to intermediate users of the Google search engine have found several other catalogs amateur astronomers have found useful. I compiled a personal list of 26761 objects from a number of catalogs I found on line. You are welcome to it.  
> **username_2**: @LdBonnie: Apparently nobody is exactly sure which object is [M102](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_102), but I can't find any other obvious problems. Contrast e.g. the NGC which has a significant number of "non-existent" objects.  
> **username_0**: "the "well agreed imperfections" of the Messier Catalog"  I don't have a list at hand but I've read about them many times.  In particular the Caldwell is said to have been created specifically to fill in the gaps  
> **username_0**: "several other catalogs amateur astronomers have found useful"  I'd be most grateful for a list.  One would expect them to exist but I only know of Messier and Caldwell.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-09-09. Score: 5

The messier catalogue and many others were not made to provide a list of interesting objects for amateur astronomers. They were meant at their time, as catalogue of objects of scientific interest - a purpose they served well; and the name given to the objects by the combination of the catalogue and their number therein, is something which hence identifies these objects.

As such: an "update" of the Messier catalogue is not possible; you can only create a new, another catalogue with similar choice of objects.

Now, if you want to make a list of "objects interesting for amateur astronomers to observe", what would you do and what would happen?

Actually the Cadwell catalogue will happen, though that is designed as a complement to the Messier catalogue (despite Messier catalogue's 'imperfections' as it was meant to describe objects to be mistaken as comets at the time of creation).

Anyone is free to create such catalogues, but giving it unique, maybe more logical, yet new names for objects already bearing a commonly-used name is a thing which is hard to push: The US along with about 3 other countries in the world still use non-metric units? Why? Basically the same reason: tradition and it's hard to change one's behaviour, even when it's totally irrational.

Similar any such new catalogue will have to first gain traction and wide-spread usage. The new names also would offer little benefit (at least initially) as things have a name; and names only serve one purpose: to uniquely identify an object you talk about. A list with the traditional names serves the same purpose with the benefit that any amateur astronomer as well as professional might know what you talk about. That said, even the Caldwell catalogue is too new for me... so talk NGC xxxx or M yy and I might have an idea - but not for IDs of the Caldwell catalogue from 1995 (despite it being a good list of recommendation for observation objects).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "were not made to provide a list of interesting objects for amateur astronomers"  I'm well aware of that however it is very commonly used as such.  
> **username_0**: "an "update" of the Messier catalogue is not possible; you can only create a new, another catalogue with similar choice of objects."  That is obvious but if it must be belabored then let me say 'catalogue that would *serve* as an updated Messier.'  
> **username_0**: "any such new catalogue will have to first gain traction and wide-spread usage"  Again that's quite obvious however Moore achieved it with Caldwell.  I merely note that something like I describe would seem to be useful and I'm wondering why it hasn't been done, or, perhaps it *has* been done and some helpful person will point me to it.  
> **username_3**: TBH, I'm not sure that Caldwell has really achieved that. He made a list, a good one. But I doubt that anyone I know will understand, what object you mean, if you refer to the Caldwell number of it. Before answering, I first had to lookup what the Caldwell catalogue *is*, only to remember that I heard of it only once before. Probably somewhere here.  
> **username_0**: I can't really disagree -- I'm barely passed novice. I was looking for the 'improvement' on Messier that I'm talking about here and stumbled upon Caldwell but I can't say much more than that it sounds like a good idea.  

---

