zloq wrote:This is where an example would help make your point - especially if it is "most of the time" breaking from the convention. Do you have a few examples (links) of this at a kepler.nasa.gov site, where they explicitly refer to the star alone as Kepler 22?
Here's an example
at a primary site for extrasolar planet information.
Note that exoplanets.org
, which is the primary database for extrasolar planets, names the star as Kepler 22. Even NASA's official Kepler list of discoveries
references exoplanets.org as its source (and doesn't otherwise name the star, just the planet).
I doubt there are any peer-reviewed papers that would depart from the convention either. wiki's, blogs, and news flashes might well not know the difference, though. But that's where APOD can help.
I wouldn't be sure about that. After all, they are calling this a "planet", even though it is, by IAU convention, no such thing. I think that in a paper, unless catalog details are at issue, it is entirely possible that the star would be called the same thing as the system, Kepler 22. It would normally be obvious from the context what was being referred to. A good writer would do better to distinguish the star from the system explicitly, rather than relying on the conventions of one particular catalog, which many readers would be unfamiliar with.
I note that on the NASA Kepler site they don't seem to refer to the star as 22a. They just refer to the Kepler 22 system, or to the star in the system.