I can't think of many situations where this would be used: it isn't really useful to list a whole bunch of star designations, as these would probably be in the star article anyway - and it isn't really an alternate designation of the planet. There are cases where the planet isn't referred to as <star name> <letter>, but TrES-1 is never referred to as GSC 02652-01324 b or anything similar (Google search doesn't turn up anything outside the Wikipedia). The only example I can think of is ET-1, which is listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia as HD 102195 b, but in the discovery paper as ET-1, and this can be handled perfectly adequately in the article without having to keep on extending the infobox in the vertical direction. Same kind of arguments for the planets with "nicknames". Chaos syndrome 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe HD 209458 b with Osiris and V376 Pegasi b. Also 55 Cancri with the planets called Rho1 Cancri Ae. The list is endless!
— HurricaneDevon @ 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but V376 Pegasi b and HD 209458 b are not separate planet designations: you're just changing the designation of the star, which should surely be dealt with in the star's topic, which either will be part of the same article, or linked to by the article.
- Basically, the literature usually uses the HD number, except for cases like Gl 876, Gl 581, Gl 436. Sometimes Bayer or Flamsteed designations are used as well (e.g. 51 Pegasi b), but it's probably more concise just to list the examples found in the scientific literature in the opening part of the article/section, rather than making a monstrously huge infobox. Chaos syndrome 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)