Yes, please submit an official clarification. Otherwise, it is not official and technically can't be confirmed as true. Assumptions are bad! [That said, I actually have no clue how a letter went missing...]I'm thinking (and hoping, since I've already done a bunch of work under that assumption) that's probably it. I'll report it when the rules clarifications open up October 1st and we'll see for sure.I think it's supposed to be SN 2014J; "SN 2014" is a typo.Hey guys, I've been working on the DSO list this year and I've got a clarification question. DSO vi. on the list is SN2014, but there are 136 CBAT supernovae using that designation. I think the rules intend SN2014J, which was the brightest supernova of the year, but it doesn't specify.
If any of y'all know anything I'd appreciate it a ton
(usual disclaimer: this is not an official clarification)
Sidebar: The DSOs this year are way cooler and more recent than they've been the past few years.
Also, to be fair about DSOs...just a few years ago we had exoplanets, which obviously had a ton of recently (like, really, not 100 yrs ago) discovered objects! The "old" DSOs are cool too!