The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
As far as I'm aware, the correct designation is q1 Eridani, and designations such as q-1 Eridani are just ways of writing the designation where superscripts are unavailable. Chaos syndrome 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
True. However, the superscripts ¹,²,³ are allowed, because of better support than other superscripts. -- kenb215 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer HD 10647 because of the need for a lowercase letter. 220.127.116.11 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Although we don't have a fixed policy, or guideline, I believe that there is a tendency to use a certain method for naming star articles. If the star has a common name, then that is used. If not, it Bayer designation is used. After that, it goes to other cataloging names. q¹ Eridani is its Bayer designation, so should (I believe) be used. -- kenb215 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've trying to follow that naming method. However, Wikipedia article naming policy prefers the most common name and in the scientific literature HD 10647 is far more common. In fact, I'm not sure if q¹ Eridani is mentioned in any paper. All Latin-letter Bayer designations are rarely used except for P Cygni (not a variable star designation) or perhaps e Eridani (e, not epsilon ε).--JyriLtalk 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with moving to HD 10647 on this one. Chaos syndrome 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with HD 10647. Krugs 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think consensus says HD 10647, so I'll move it now. -- kenb215 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.