[AJames]

Argonavis said - and these are my replies;

"Herschel in 1855 refers to "superb globular cluster, No 47, Toucani of Bode...one of the finest objects of this kind in the heavens." with this sort of provinence, why would you rename it?"
* "provinence". Do you mean providence or prominence? I've presumed the former.

While John Herschel did write this, it was during the time when he was reflecting on his observational endeavours of his father. However, although Herschel didn't give it a name doesn't exclude the possibility of giving them proper names. This issue is necessary because most northerners could care less about objects they can't see. 47 Tuc's declination makes it an unworthy target to about +15 degrees latitude - well away from the traditional population centres of the world - and its is really this reason for the neglect.

"It was listed by Bode in his catalogue of 1801, which is a separate work to his Atlas "Uranographia" of the same year."

Yes, this is true. However, but both were actually intended to be together. The catalogue was a validation of its worth, but he knew the popular part of his work was the atlas which was - along with the newer editions that were to come - his money making and enduring endeavour. Furthermore, the catalogue was a star catalogue and not a deep-sky one. I think it is confusing to label deep-sky objects as stars - even if this is historical the case. Ie. We don't call M22 by its Flamsteed Number do we?

"There is only one other spectacular southern object that I know of whose designation has survived from Bodes catalogue - 30 Doradus, otherwise known as the Tarantula Nebula."

I was very surprised you quoted this as an example, because it actually validates the whole gist of the argument. If 30 Doradus is also known as the Tarantula Nebula, then why aren't 47 Tuc and Omega Centauri given the same treatment - especially if they are significantly brighter and more prominent?

[Note: Another the magnificent northern example is h and chi Persei, two actual open star clusters known as the "Double Cluster of Perseus". chi Persei is listed as the Flamsteed star, 6 Per, even though it is nearly always is referred to as the star cluster, NGC 869. However, fainter h Persei, which is the brightest star of companion cluster NGC 884, has no Flamsteed number.
Actually both clusters are actually officially recognised as the "Chi Persei Cluster" - another example of the frankly bizarre nomenclature / naming system - but the point is - why give star names to objects that are clearly star clusters with many stars or even known nebulae which are so visually different?
Yet, after all this, what do nearly every northerner commonly call this... "Double Cluster of Perseus"! ]

No! I think as southern observers who are impressed with the magnificent bright objects in our southern skies should be OBLIGED to use proper names.

Comment : Let's just say your avatar here of "Argonavis" portrays something useful that is actually relating you. Would you instead prefer your ABN number (Australian Business Number) instead and even just the non-descriptor of "Hey You"? Shouldn't we apply similar precepts to the best deep-sky objects, and say, for arguments sake, also the Top 100 stars in the sky?

I do intend to make an additional statement on bringing proper names into common usage in due time...